Cod "science" that ruins a sci fi film

[Gaith]

The whole premise of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. You get your memories of your ex wiped, and no one, not your boss, old friends, whatever, will ever accidentally mention the relationship again! You'll never wonder what you were doing all that time you were in the relationship doing relationship-y things, or how you met friends you made through the relationship, or why your bank account looks different... oh, and it'll totally be legal, too!

Stupid concept, lame movie. Especially since a chemical heartbreak salve is far more likely to be produced in the near future and would be much less problematic.

 

[JuanBolio]

What happens if you disintegrate a comet traveling at 40 m/s just seconds from hitting the Earth?

Okay, I'll tell you--you cause *more* damage by allowing the mass of the comet to more efficiently turn into energy in the Earth's atmosphere. That mass doesn't disappear because you've dispersed it.

Hmm - I didn't think of that, and I usually think of most things of that sort.

- Light Sabers

Not if they're plasma arcs.

- X & Y-Wing fighters moving like fighter jets in space

Yes.

- Death Star weapon starting out as multiple beams then combining into one beam and redirecting

Depends on what kind of beam it is.

- Workers on platform with no railing exposed to primary weapon beam

Bugged me too. Shielding their eyes? They'd be cinders on the wall behind them.

- One shot from an X-Wing fighter down a vent hole blowing up an entire moon sized space station

Nah, not if it hits the reactor.

- Small spacecraft traveling between planets (as per Lookingglassman)

Guess it depends on what kind of propulsion system they have.

I'll add to this that it makes no sense to build spacecraft with decks stacked like on a wet-Navy vessel. Starships will likely have decks stacked like floors on a skyscraper.

 

[Rii]

The idea of humans as batteries in The Matrix was pretty dumb. It didn't ruin the film, but it took me out of it for a while. You know you have to feed people to keep them alive, right?

See, what Morpheus said was the machines used humans along with a type of fusion, to power the machine world.

My analysis was that 99.9999% of the machines' power comes from fusion reactors and the electricity generated by human batteries is used to power street lights.

In fact, it seems odd that there wasn't a reveal as to a real reason the humans are kept around. But that would've required something more substantial from the sequels.

They could've said that the machine civilisation employed human brains as organic computers for their own purposes, more efficient for certain tasks than silicon or somesuch. That would go some way towards justifying keeping something as complex and resource intensive as a human being alive, more sense than for our body heat at least. Would've messed with the concept of The Matrix itself, though.

 

[Christopher]

I'll add to this that it makes no sense to build spacecraft with decks stacked like on a wet-Navy vessel. Starships will likely have decks stacked like floors on a skyscraper.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the decks would be perpendicular to the front-back axis of the ship, with the gravity vector toward the rear of the vessel (so that the engines are actually on the "bottom")? If the ship uses some form of reaction thrust, then it would indeed pretty much have to be designed that way, yes. But most fictional starships need to have some form of reactionless drive or inertial cancellation to be able to achieve useful accelerations without turning the crew into chunky salsa, so that opens up other possible deck arrangements. Of course, that also means there are more possibilities besides the "straight up and down" model -- for instance, concentric decks.

 

[JuanBolio]

I'll add to this that it makes no sense to build spacecraft with decks stacked like on a wet-Navy vessel. Starships will likely have decks stacked like floors on a skyscraper.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the decks would be perpendicular to the front-back axis of the ship, with the gravity vector toward the rear of the vessel (so that the engines are actually on the "bottom")? If the ship uses some form of reaction thrust, then it would indeed pretty much have to be designed that way, yes. But most fictional starships need to have some form of reactionless drive or inertial cancellation to be able to achieve useful accelerations without turning the crew into chunky salsa, so that opens up other possible deck arrangements. Of course, that also means there are more possibilities besides the "straight up and down" model -- for instance, concentric decks.

If you have a reactionless drive and gravity plating, sure. You can do it any which way you want. Most vessels in Star Trek and Star Wars, though, seem to have some kind of reaction-based drive, at least for sublight (otherwise what would be the point of an IDF?). Given that, stacking decks perpendicular to the thrust axis would be the most efficient means of simulating gravity. Stacking decks parallel to the thrust axis seems needlessly complex to me, requiring various handwavium fields in place to offset inertia from acceleration and keep people's feet on the floor.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

One thing that does tend to ruin it for me is not so much the use of techno babble to explain something like how they are going to travel in time, but when they try to use a scientific theory and get it wrong. There was a recent episode in heroes where they tried to use relativity to explain high velocity as a means of going forward and backward through time.

 

[JediKnightButler]

In the mid-90s was born the scientifically stupid epic. Movies that avoided physics so scrupulously that it seemed their writers were afraid of being sued by reality for copyright infringement.

"afraid of being sued by reality for copyright infringement! *LMAO* great line!!!! I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you have a reactionless drive and gravity plating, sure. You can do it any which way you want. Most vessels in Star Trek and Star Wars, though, seem to have some kind of reaction-based drive, at least for sublight (otherwise what would be the point of an IDF?). Given that, stacking decks perpendicular to the thrust axis would be the most efficient means of simulating gravity. Stacking decks parallel to the thrust axis seems needlessly complex to me, requiring various handwavium fields in place to offset inertia from acceleration and keep people's feet on the floor.

Trek does have gravity plating. We've all seen it. (Although I believe the only time when it is specifically referred to as "plating" is in that DS9 ep where Sisko builds an old Bajoran solar sailer - he installs gravity plating in it.) Artificial gravity has been part of Trek since day one. So it doesn't matter what kind of "drive" the ships use. The artificial gravity is a separate thing from that.

 

[JuanBolio]

Trek does have gravity plating. We've all seen it. (Although I believe the only time when it is specifically referred to as "plating" is in that DS9 ep where Sisko builds an old Bajoran solar sailer - he installs gravity plating in it.) Artificial gravity has been part of Trek since day one. So it doesn't matter what kind of "drive" the ships use. The artificial gravity is a separate thing from that.

Yes, I know that. But why? It makes the whole system needlessly complex. You draw power to create one gravity field to keep people's feet on an awkwardly aligned deck, and use another power-hungry IDF field to cancel out the acceleration that wants to pull everyone backward parallel to the floors.

Why not be simple about it and stack the decks perpendicular to the thrust axis, forget the artificial gravity field, and maybe, if anything, have an IDF field to make high accelerations more tolerable. That's how a sane person would design a starship. Stacking the decks like on an ocean-going vessel doesn't make sense.

 

[Marc]

Trek does have gravity plating. We've all seen it. (Although I believe the only time when it is specifically referred to as "plating" is in that DS9 ep where Sisko builds an old Bajoran solar sailer - he installs gravity plating in it.) Artificial gravity has been part of Trek since day one. So it doesn't matter what kind of "drive" the ships use. The artificial gravity is a separate thing from that.

Yes, I know that. But why? It makes the whole system needlessly complex. You draw power to create one gravity field to keep people's feet on an awkwardly aligned deck, and use another power-hungry IDF field to cancel out the acceleration that wants to pull everyone backward parallel to the floors.

Why not be simple about it and stack the decks perpendicular to the thrust axis, forget the artificial gravity field, and maybe, if anything, have an IDF field to make high accelerations more tolerable. That's how a sane person would design a starship. Stacking the decks like on an ocean-going vessel doesn't make sense.

Because it doesn't matter what axis the decks are on, accelerating to FTL speeds will leave you a thin smear on the nearest surface unless you have something like an IDF.

Hell even a jump to full impulse (0.25c) would crush you even in an acceleration couch unless you did it very slowly.

 

[Christopher]

Why not be simple about it and stack the decks perpendicular to the thrust axis, forget the artificial gravity field, and maybe, if anything, have an IDF field to make high accelerations more tolerable. That's how a sane person would design a starship. Stacking the decks like on an ocean-going vessel doesn't make sense.

Well, yes and no. The ship wouldn't be under constant thrust, so unless you want the crew to spend most of its time in free fall interspersed with varying gravity levels from time to time, you'd need to have an AG field. Still, you're right that it would be easier to balance the AG field and the thrust if they were in the same direction.

Because it doesn't matter what axis the decks are on, accelerating to FTL speeds will leave you a thin smear on the nearest surface unless you have something like an IDF.

"Accelerating to FTL speeds" is a meaningless concept. It's impossible to reach or exceed the speed of light by using thrust to accelerate through space. The only way to do it is by warping space itself, whether with a warp bubble or a wormhole, and that entails no thrust or acceleration upon the ship itself (except for the gravity of the wormhole as the ship approaches it, but if the ship is on a freefall trajectory, there'd be no thrust or perception of weight).

 

[Neopeius]

In the mid-90s was born the scientifically stupid epic. Movies that avoided physics so scrupulously that it seemed their writers were afraid of being sued by reality for copyright infringement.

"afraid of being sued by reality for copyright infringement! *LMAO* great line!!!! I'll have to remember that one.

Thank you! Feel free.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

. Of course, that also means there are more possibilities besides the "straight up and down" model -- for instance, concentric decks.

Which is what they did on the Death Stars actually. An outer shell of concentric decks a few km thick surrounding a core of "stacked" decks.

 

[Christopher]

Which is what they did on the Death Stars actually. An outer shell of concentric decks a few km thick surrounding a core of "stacked" decks.

Did they? I guess that would explain the trench sequence, which treated the hull of the DS as a "ground" surface of sorts, but didn't we see the Falcon coming into an equatorial hangar bay that was oriented with its floor perpendicular to the equatorial hull, i.e. following the "stacked" model? And that was right at the outer edge.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

There was a recent episode in heroes where they tried to use relativity to explain high velocity as a means of going forward and backward through time.

They had it right at least in terms of going FORWARD in time. Straight out of relativity theory.

I've heard it said that if it were possible to travel superlumianlly IN THEORY you could at least VIEW past history by travelling faster than the light particles that were emitted from whatever you were viewing. You would, however, also have to travel significan PHYSICAL distances for this to happen, and the physics of light dispersion in space might render the question moot because the light would be too difused to percieve once you reach your target point.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Which is what they did on the Death Stars actually. An outer shell of concentric decks a few km thick surrounding a core of "stacked" decks.

Did they? I guess that would explain the trench sequence, which treated the hull of the DS as a "ground" surface of sorts, but didn't we see the Falcon coming into an equatorial hangar bay that was oriented with its floor perpendicular to the equatorial hull, i.e. following the "stacked" model? And that was right at the outer edge.

Yes, there was an "equitorial trench" (not the same trench as the reactor port) that had perpendicular decking that allowed for docking "pass throughs" to the interior for ships of varying sizes. The deep interior of the DS had multiple bays capable of housing Star Destroyers.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

There was a recent episode in heroes where they tried to use relativity to explain high velocity as a means of going forward and backward through time.

They had it right at least in terms of going FORWARD in time. Straight out of relativity theory.

I've heard it said that if it were possible to travel superlumianlly IN THEORY you could at least VIEW past history by travelling faster than the light particles that were emitted from whatever you were viewing. You would, however, also have to travel significan PHYSICAL distances for this to happen, and the physics of light dispersion in space might render the question moot because the light would be too difused to percieve once you reach your target point.

They went both directions. It was the episode Ando got his super charge ability and used it to charge Daphane's speed ability.

 

[Christopher]

There was a recent episode in heroes where they tried to use relativity to explain high velocity as a means of going forward and backward through time.

They had it right at least in terms of going FORWARD in time. Straight out of relativity theory.

No, they had it totally wrong. They claimed that Daphne was somehow able to run faster than light once Ando supercharged her. Now, it is true that, by General Relativity, any form of FTL travel is implicitly a time machine, potentially allowing travel forward or backward in time. But running faster than light? Rubbish. You can't get FTL just by accelerating; the closer you accelerate toward lightspeed, the more relativistic mass and inertia you build up, making it exponentially harder to go still faster, so that you'd require infinite energy to reach lightspeed; surpassing it is obviously out of the question. Not to mention that the Earth's escape velocity is only 11 km/s, or 1/27000 of the speed of light; any runner would go flying off into space long before they got anywhere remotely near lightspeed.

 

[DWF]

There was a recent episode in heroes where they tried to use relativity to explain high velocity as a means of going forward and backward through time.

They had it right at least in terms of going FORWARD in time. Straight out of relativity theory.

No, they had it totally wrong. They claimed that Daphne was somehow able to run faster than light once Ando supercharged her. Now, it is true that, by General Relativity, any form of FTL travel is implicitly a time machine, potentially allowing travel forward or backward in time. But running faster than light? Rubbish. You can't get FTL just by accelerating; the closer you accelerate toward lightspeed, the more relativistic mass and inertia you build up, making it exponentially harder to go still faster, so that you'd require infinite energy to reach lightspeed; surpassing it is obviously out of the question. Not to mention that the Earth's escape velocity is only 11 km/s, or 1/27000 of the speed of light; any runner would go flying off into space long before they got anywhere remotely near lightspeed.

Well it worked for The Flash.

 

[JuanBolio]

Well, yes and no. The ship wouldn't be under constant thrust, so unless you want the crew to spend most of its time in free fall interspersed with varying gravity levels from time to time, you'd need to have an AG field.

A little free fall now and then is what separates the squids from the spacers!

Still, you're right that it would be easier to balance the AG field and the thrust if they were in the same direction.

Yes! Thank you. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. I can understand the logic in having an AG field for a TV show - they're not likely to be able to afford to spend days upon days, weeks upon weeks filming on the Vomit Comet. I simply never saw the sense in stacking the decks perpendicular to the thrust axis, other than to make a ship look "cool" (a noble persuit, but scientifically flawed)

Because it doesn't matter what axis the decks are on, accelerating to FTL speeds will leave you a thin smear on the nearest surface unless you have something like an IDF.

"Accelerating to FTL speeds" is a meaningless concept. It's impossible to reach or exceed the speed of light by using thrust to accelerate through space. The only way to do it is by warping space itself, whether with a warp bubble or a wormhole, and that entails no thrust or acceleration upon the ship itself (except for the gravity of the wormhole as the ship approaches it, but if the ship is on a freefall trajectory, there'd be no thrust or perception of weight).

Thanks for beating me to the argument. Yes, Marc, you don't need an IDF for warp travel - there is no inertia to deal with as your ship isn't really moving in relation to local space around it. However, if you have a sublight action/reaction drive that is capable of accelerations of more than a couple of gees, an IDF is necessary to prevent your entire crew from succumbing to Robau Syndrome.

If your ship has decks stacked like floors in a skyscraper with the impulse engines at the bottom its a lot easier to balance the competing forces of acceleration artificial gravity, and inertial damping, since "up" and "down" would only have one meaning as opposed to two. The way Trek and Wars ships are designed, when a ship fires its reaction engines inertia wants to pull everyone in the ship backward, while the IDF tries to cancel this out at the same time as the gravity field tries to keep their feet on the deck. Its a lot easier if acceleration wants to pull you down onto the floor instead of back into the wall. See what I mean?