digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at io9.com —

Bad Movie Physics -- A Report Card [Chart]

io9.com — Which space travel movies violate which 11 crucial laws of physics? Find out in this chart.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/15/2008, -65/+4There's no Star Trek listed, author fails.
    • EpicSelekta, on 03/15/2008, -1/+10Forget Star Trek, there's no SPACEBALLS. It fails only 2 categories: faster than light travel and fires in space. That's pretty good for a movie where realism doesn't even matter!
      • ArmandoM, on 03/15/2008, -0/+8I just watched it last night...

        Easy communication with aliens? and Easy interbreeding with aliens? Barf spoke pretty good English and was half man half dog.... (Ok, I suppose neither man or dog is an alien.)

        Wierd depictions of exposure to vacuum.. well, if you count Mega-Maid's vacuum cleaner sucking trees out of the ground and then re-planting them. :)

        Faster than light travel... what a ludicrous thought.

        They did have sound in space. You could hear Spaceball One's engines right at the beginning of the movie after the camera pans past the entire ship for what seems like an eternity.

        The planets all seemed to have earth gravity too

        best show ever.
      • Spuy767, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3The lasers in Star wars aren't lasers at all. They are metered plasma discharge weapons. If he's going to claim anything about lasers, he should claim the fact that we can see the beam at all.
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/15/2008, -3/+22They explain why there is no Star Trek listed. YOU MUST RTFA in its entirety.

      BigManOnCampus fails. Too much time in gym. Not enough study.
    • darienphoenix, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2Check his posting history. The guy is an idiot.
    • Hoogs, on 03/15/2008, -3/+2Guys, give him a break. Not everyone has the time (or desire) to read the entire article. Like me, he probably just looked at the chart and moved on. You people can be so cruel sometimes.
    • sanman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Hey, real space is boring, and mostly has poor lighting.
  • ghidorahnotweak, on 03/15/2008, -3/+104I think the author pointed out that she didn't include Star Trek because it was such a giant story that it managed to violate every single law. So it wasn't a good example.
    • exodii, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7Star Wars is also a giant story, and it also managed to break almost all the rules. It might be the case that the more there is of a science fiction franchise in general, the more obscene it becomes to science. Which means that scifi producers don't give a ***** about science and even when they get something right, it's by accident.
    • BTraina, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Some universities have the Physics of Star Trek as a writing/science class, where you have to prove or disprove star trek physics. Supposedly you watch episodes in class.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 03/15/2008, -6/+3Uhm, Star Wars doesn't take place in our universe, thus this list is irrelevant.
    • DMCer, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2There was never "sound in space" in Contact. She was inside the sphere the whole time.
  • deadlift, on 03/15/2008, -2/+56R.I.P Stanley Kubrick
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/15/2008, -5/+2They should write another one for books.
  • DeskFlyer, on 03/15/2008, -0/+24Phil Plait, the author of Bad Astronomy, covered many of these and more in great detail: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/
    • theaceoffire, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1I feel some of these are excusable.
      For example, understanding alien language would be simple, since you would just need a translator embedded in your ear, which is child's play compared to a light saber.
  • djepik, on 03/15/2008, -0/+160I'm sorry all-seeing and all-knowing physics chart, I wasn't aware that lasers traveled faster than light.

    Now I know! Allow me to fire up my time-traveling laser pointer!
    • LimeParrot, on 03/15/2008, -1/+14Who knew my keychain is a time machine. Ebay, here I come!
    • charliejane, on 03/15/2008, -2/+6Whoops, it should say light-speed, not faster-than-light. I'll fix that.
    • DelayedEraser, on 03/15/2008, -0/+27i'm not sure communication with aliens falls under laws of physics either
      • MarkTaiwan, on 03/15/2008, -3/+2neither is interbreeding with aliens
        • Myonosken, on 03/15/2008, -1/+6Depends on the size of the alien...
        • Joest23, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1Or how they reproduce...
          We have no idea if they are asexual or what size their wang is (Or where it's located...).
          • RpgActioN, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3It's on their shoulder.

            OH YEAH SUCK MY JAGON
    • kingvik, on 03/15/2008, -7/+14Plus, it's theoretically possible to travel at speeds greater than light. They used to believe that going faster than the speed of sound was impossible, they were wrong.
      • Fxer, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1It's possible to travel faster than light, what is not possible is to accelerate from low velocities to the speed of light. It would require infinite energy.
    • studdenfadden, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6The writer of the article is wrong when refers to lasers as being faster than light. Lasers are light and therefore travel at the speed of light, 186,000 miles a second.
      This is taught in grade 8 science:
      http://www.che.wsu.edu/home/modules/95modules/fill ...
    • Vapor17, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2additionally, spacecraft would explode in space because any ship supporting life would need oxygen, and thusly could burn (assuming there is another combustible material)
      • stargatesteve, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1unlikely. Explosive decompression would empty the ship of air before there was a chance to burn. Also, air does not burn, and pure oxygen is unbreathable for extended periods of time. Believe it or not, not everything blows up with a huge fireball.
  • Thisiscjfool, on 03/15/2008, -8/+3I also think that one for TV shows is in order. Namely the Stargate franchises, Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek. Well maybe not Star Trek.
  • tehbored, on 03/15/2008, -0/+80Why would a hull breach kill everyone instantly? People can survive in a vacuum for as long as 30 seconds. Just remember, exhale, don't inhale (I'm lookin' at you, Dave).
    • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -1/+25There actually was an astronaut that was briefly exposed to the vacuum of space due to a tear in his suit.
    • Ajajadude, on 03/15/2008, -1/+44And any species smart enough to build large spaceships capable of interstellar travel would probably be smart enough to design their ships to prevent a hull breach in one section of a ship from affecting the entire ship.
      • BenKenobi88, on 03/15/2008, -0/+8That's assumed. The author meant anyone in the immediate rooms and non-air-tight adjacent rooms. Which makes sense, but I do also believe it'd be possible to survive the immediate exposure if the door is shut very quickly and oxygen is reintroduced again.
      • weizilla, on 03/15/2008, -1/+10we're smart enough to build giant ships to cross the oceans but they still sink....
    • evodude, on 03/15/2008, -0/+13Yeah, that didn't seem right to me either. They were wrong. At least, that's what NASA says.
      http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer ...
      Although, in fairness, I think the normal human reaction would be to hold your breath, but it still wouldn't kill you instantly.
      • evodude, on 03/15/2008, -0/+10Stupid broken link.
        http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer ...

        Digg seems to hate my link. The last part is s/970603.html
        • deanoplex, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2"The subject later reported that he could feel and hear the air leaking out, and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil." Great link, evodude!
      • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2In space, you're ideally going from an atmosphere of 1 to 0. A single atmosphere of decompression really isn't all that much (still deadly, but not exactly explosive). This is the worst decompression incident yet recorded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"Diver D4 was shot out through the small jammed hatch door opening, and was ripped apart. Subsequent investigation by forensic pathologists determined that diver D4, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient, violently exploded due to the rapid and massive expansion of internal gases. All of his thoracic and abdominal organs, and even his thoracic spine were ejected, as were all of his limbs. Simultaneously, his remains were expelled with force through the narrow trunk opening left by the jammed chamber door, less than 60 centimeters (24 inches) in diameter. Fragments of his body were found scattered about the rig. One part was even found lying on the rig’s derrick, 10 meters (30 feet) directly above the chambers. His death most likely was instantaneous and painless."

          Holy *****...
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/15/2008, -11/+4It's not the lack of oxygen (or air) in space that would instantly kill a person in a vacuum. It's the zero pressure combined with the fact that all liquids (including the water in your body) would boil quickly combined with the release of heat from your body.

      Ever see what happens to a marshmallow in a near vacuum in a lab?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHY9fFQhX68

      Now, use the complete vacuum of space and convert to this vacuum instantly.

      And we haven't even talked yet about the massive radiation in space.
      • vangard, on 03/15/2008, -1/+11"all liquids (including the water in your body) would boil quickly"
        Nope. Your skin creates a pretty good seal and maintains pressure in your body. Your blood only boils if your blood pressure drops below a point. Any surfaces exposed to the vacuum will have liquids like perspiration evaporate away, but nothing more. You loose heat very slowly. Additionally, the max mechanical counterpressure from your body is 101kPa. Lack of external pressure while in a vacuum wouldn't be fatal. Nor would radiation, save possibly the most regions of space, like around Jupiter.
        Nope - it most likely would be suffocation that kills you.
        • Quakee, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3so what would happen if one were to be hooked up to an oxygen mask only? Basically be allowed to breathe but not be protected from the vacuum of space. Would they just eventually freeze to death? Would inhaling be possible?
        • InfiniteNothing, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Body hickey
      • Picaroon, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5You don't flash freeze. You lose heat by radiating it, just like you are doing right now. There isn't any cold air or other substance to strip the heat, so you don't freeze very fast.
      • senatorpjt, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3I've put my thumb over the opening of a high-vacuum pump and the thumb is still there. (on my hand, not on the pump)
    • ncdave101, on 03/15/2008, -1/+15"(I'm lookin' at you, Dave)"

      What'd I do?!? :-)
    • rusty0101, on 03/15/2008, -1/+5Actually, feel free to inhale if you would like. Expanding your chest will not bring in all that much air, but keeping your airway open will allow you to equalize the pressure. Holding your breath will be a bit of a problem. I would put it as you can try, but you'll lose in the end. Other things to watch out for are clogged Eustachian tubes, and clogged sinuses. Vacuum is certain to eliminate the clogs, but you'll have the fun of the pain involved with those cavities being over pressurized in the interim.

      Intestinal gases are also likely be an issue, but a vacuum isn't required for that...
      • rootneg2, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5i think the parent comment is talking about inhaling in preparation for vacuum like you would inhale before diving under water, which carries a big risk of exploding lungs; rather than trying to inhale *in* the vacuum.

        Exploding lungs aren't generally medically advisable.
        • chinolofus, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4i will remember this the next time im in space.
    • inverselogic, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1How did Sunshine have fire in space? Anytime there was fire in that movie it involved oxygen...(unless you count the sun as "fire")
    • Meltyman, on 03/15/2008, -0/+9The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says that if you hold a lungful of air you can survive in the total vacuum of space for about thirty seconds. However it goes on to say that what with space being the mind boggling size it is the chances of getting picked up by another ship within those thirty seconds are two to the power of two hundred and sixty-seven thousand seven hundred and nine to one against.
  • LimeParrot, on 03/15/2008, -5/+36In the defense of super-futuristic movies, faster than light travel might be possible. I'm no expert (please intervene if I'm incorrect) but quantum effects such as quantum coupling seem to violate Einstein's Relativity and hence the notion of nothing-can-travel-faster-than-light. It's possible that quantum effects can be explained by less 'weird' theories on a more fundamental level, making things possible that we can't even dream of (including super-light speeds). And if that doesn't work, there's always the possibility of wormholes! If our species keeps advancing and advancing for many centuries, the possibilities are endless... (imagine telling a farmer living 2000 years ago that one day we'll walk on the moon...he'll think you're crazy and chase you with a plow!).
    • Ajajadude, on 03/15/2008, -3/+17Yeah, this author assumes our knowledge of physics is the end-all authority on everything in the universe.
      • LimeParrot, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1And you assume our knowledge of physics is sound. Ever tried to teach algebra to an ant?
    • JigoroKano, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3In quantum field theory, faster than light travel is exponentially suppressed. Not something within the realm of foreseeable applicability. It would be much easier to walk through through a solid wall.

      Creating wormholes of sufficient size as to not rip you to shreds would take many, many solar masses of energy.
    • sekhui, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4quantum entanglement seemingly violates the faster than light conundrum by allowing particles to effect each other across great distances instantaneously. however, it doesn't actually violate any part of relativistic theory because there's nothing you can do with it, i.e. you can't transmit information using quantum entanglement without having a regular, light speed communications link operating with your "faster than light" quantum entanglement "telegraph".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
      • wolferz, on 03/15/2008, -2/+1actually Einstein theorized that, he called it spooky action at a distance...

        General relativity, as opposed to special relativity.
      • LimeParrot, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2thanks for that
    • JackHarkness, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1I think you mean quantum entanglement. currently quantum theroy explains that as psedo time travel(the information passes backwards in time to where they were seperated so they know what to do in the future) not FTL. IMHO one day we might be able to travel in hyperspace(the 4th spacial dimension) but getting into the 4th dimension will be the hard part. Traveling faster than light in normal space will always be impossible, unless you can somehow cange the speed of light.
    • centran, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
    • lndmn01, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3A farmer from 2000 years ago couldn't chase you with a plow. A plow would require a team of work animal (ox, horses, mules) to move.
    • kingcam, on 03/15/2008, -1/+5Actually, FTL travel is, if not convenient, mathematically and physically possible. For the last decade or so the theoretical Alcubierre drive would allow for such travel. What the drive does is move the space around the "Warp bubble" without actually accelerating the bubble itself. Since Special Relativity only prohibits information from moving FTL moving a vacuum around is perfectly reasonable. While there are problems with the drive none of them actually prohibit its feasibility.
    • senatorpjt, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1The explanation I've heard is the universe is curved and if you can tunnel outside of it, you can pass in a straight line from one part to another. You're technically not traveling faster than light, but it appears faster than light from the perspective of an observer in our universe.
    • DanDotOrg, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1Does this guy know how to party or what??
    • BruceBogtrotter, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1This obviously doesn't prove that we could travel faster than the speed of light, but it's interesting. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/spee ...
  • Peko, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6No magic xylophone?
  • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -1/+105Contact didn't have sound in space, and the communication with the aliens was all math-based. The 'sound in space' bit was just used in the opening bit to illustrate how far from earth our radio signals might have gone after they could generate signals strong enough to leave the planet. You hear the sound because it's hard to visualize 'radio waves'. Contact has a clean bill as far as I'm concerned.
    • banido, on 03/15/2008, -10/+5Yeah except there´s that part where she talks with her father/alien/whatever...
      Great movie though.
      • Scaryclouds, on 03/15/2008, -6/+10They read her mind (which in and of itself is a scientific phopau). It wasn't really her father.
        • Multipurpose, on 03/15/2008, -0/+23Not trying to be "that guy," but were you trying to say faux pas? The way you spelled it was extremely creative, it was like a Hawaiian word.
          • DephexTwin, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11Yeah, I have to say that spelling attempt was so bold and confident (and wrong), it was definitely worth noting... in the end, I really don't know how to feel about it.
        • bitterman316, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4That´s why he added the "/alien/whatever".
        • Klarth, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7'Phopau', lmao
        • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -3/+1Or, she just imagined it all. Which I do believe was the point of the movie.
        • wpi97, on 03/16/2008, -1/+2@directedtion
          You really should watch the movie again. I believe you missed the point, or rather points.
          • directedition, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I believe you missed the end. The point was about perception and how we come to believe what we believe. She conceded the possibility, however unlikely, that she imagined the whole thing. The point of the movie was that we CAN'T know what happened. She had an experience and can't be certain if it was real. She bases her stance that it happened based on her own personal belief.
      • Ajajadude, on 03/15/2008, -2/+8Any species capable of doing what those aliens did probably would have a universal translator of sorts. Besides, why would a species go out of its way too bring other species to them if they didn't have a way to communicate with them?
        • diktator279, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11"why would a species go out of its way too bring other species to them if they didn't have a way to communicate with them?"

          I have a bunch of Asian people tied up in my basement. Its just fun.
      • bitterman316, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2The point is, in that instance the communication between a human and an alien was Easy.
        • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2it wasn't unrealistically easy, tho. If the alien dude said they could read her mind and communicate with her, then that should be an exception for that rule :P
    • x0epyon0x, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7Actually, radio signals attenuate to noise at about a light year past Earth. So, in all reality, aliens living past that distance would receive a bunch of a noise as opposed to an episode of The Honeymooners.
      • SD70MACMAN, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6I pity the aliens if they got episodes of The Honeymooners. They'd never want to come to Earth.
    • mike17032, on 03/15/2008, -19/+2To bad it sucked so much ass.
      • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2I thought it was great, tho they spent too much energy beating the 'god vs science' thing into the ground.
    • ostracize, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3She travelled faster than the speed of light (albeit in what we believe could be a valid way).
  • Richandler, on 03/15/2008, -3/+58I will leave my real physics in the real world. In my entertainment I want to defy physics and logic.
    • sabach, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1That's my stand on it too. Space operas would be fatally boring if you had to suffer through things like races having to learn each others languages and all space travel being sub-light. It is, after all, called science FICTION.
  • Lazn0r, on 03/15/2008, -4/+4I don't see how much of those can be applied to Star Wars; "Easy contact with aliens" well we'd have pretty easy contact with aliens if they were right next to us too...
    • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -3/+7the thing about starwars that I thought was hilarious was they didn't need any sort of communications devices or anything. Everyone spoke in whatever ***** up language they wanted, and everyone else could just understand them automatically. Even the droids.
      • Darthyoshiboy, on 03/15/2008, -0/+19I can't believe I'm doing this but...
        That's because all the species had been members of a galactic republic for thousands of years. We've only been speaking English on this planet for some odd 2000 years and it's just about universal. Not everyone in Star Wars understands each other either, in a New Hope, Luke has to be told what the alien in the cantina is saying to him, and Jabba needs a translator, so there must be some people that do not understand him.
      • ooooo, on 03/15/2008, -0/+16They didn't speak every language and understand them all that's what C3PO was for, he is fluent "in over six million forms of communication."
        • Myonosken, on 03/15/2008, -6/+2Including gay, but that's another story.
  • StatiK69, on 03/15/2008, -0/+38What, no Spaceballs?!
  • Cathinkmonkey, on 03/15/2008, -5/+0>Neck in pain!
  • MutatedNantuko, on 03/15/2008, -1/+14Where's Total Recall?
  • amiga5000, on 03/15/2008, -1/+35Actually, on 2001: A space odyssey, Kubrick used the theory that men can live a few seconds on the vacuum.
    • chesstwin, on 03/15/2008, -0/+21which is true.....
    • mr100percent, on 03/15/2008, -0/+15Also, I didn't see too much slow motion in space. I remember the scientist and the pod really flying out of there when HAL set it to attack him. Maybe they're thinking of the snail-pace space stewardess?
      • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11you'd move slowly if you were velcro'ed to the floor (or ceiling... as the case may be) as well :P
      • joegibes, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7There's lots of slow motion in 2001:.
      • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Maybe space suits are very conducive to moving fast. They're fairly bulky.
  • SpectreFire, on 03/15/2008, -2/+24There's a reason why they're all called science FICTION.
    • schnitzi, on 03/15/2008, -2/+7Yeah, but without getting the science right, it's just plain FICTION!
      • tehrich, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1The science just refers a sub-genre of fiction, usually things involving space in some way, not that it's accurately grounded in science. Fiction is quite a broad subject.
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -19/+3yea, star wars pretty much violates every one. star wars sucks. bury me like you know you want to. i ***** hate star wars.
    • SpectreFire, on 03/15/2008, -3/+16Let's see what's in Star Wars.

      Lasers, scantily clad women, explosions, incest, big ***** giant moons of doom, space fights, robots, super powers, more explosions and a black guy.

      What the ***** is wrong with you?
      • holymrack, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11I believe you're the only person to say incest is cool on Digg and not be buried.
        • DephexTwin, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3Incest rules, but our offspring drools!
      • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -6/+3i guess i just appreciate movies with more substance. Something that you have to use your brain to enjoy. i have tried and tried but have never really "gotten" the star wars movies. i have made it through the first and second ones (episodes IV and V) but only halfway through Jedi. and cannot sit through any of episodes I II or III. i know im being blasphemous here, but im going to say it anyway. i never got into the Indiana Jones movies either. they do not interest me at all. to me, there's just more to life than corny story lines and a barrage of perfectly choreographed action sequences.
        • holymrack, on 03/15/2008, -1/+5What then, would you suggest, is a good science fiction film?
      • ejan, on 03/15/2008, -0/+8Hey now. There were three black guys.
      • tech42er, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1Incest?
        • tehrich, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Luke and Leia totally make out in Empire Strikes Back.
  • frakir, on 03/15/2008, -0/+17Someone tell me what was weird in space odyssey depiction of humans exposed to vacuum. Humans don't die instantly in vacuum...they can survive about 10-15 sec of vacuum exposure. Other then that it is a nice chart
    • goldfenix, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6I can at least speak with regards to Sunshine. In the movie Sunshine, some people have to essentially jump from ship to ship without spacesuits. They correctly breath out before making the jump, but on arrival they are covered in frostbite.

      From what I understand, they would actually be rather unharmed outside of their top few layers of skin being damaged. Frostbite would not occur because that would require that there is some material in space to pull the heat away from your skin, and there simply isn't enough hydrogen floating out there to do that.
  • EpicSelekta, on 03/15/2008, -1/+17Something tells me that "Easy communication with aliens" isn't a physics issue.

    And on what basis do they imply that it's difficult?
    • Pillage, on 03/15/2008, -0/+8In Stargate only Daniel Jackson can communicate with them because they speak ancient Egyptian, and Contact..well, we don't talk about Contact.
      • EpicSelekta, on 03/15/2008, -1/+6In *REAL LIFE*, no one (as far as I know) has succeeded in communicating with an alien. However, no one has failed at it either.

        As far we I know.
  • DearSergio, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Dugg for Stargate. RDA!
    • BrandonWicks, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1They were referring to the movie... which was Kurt Russel.
  • vspazv, on 03/15/2008, -2/+43The Stargate ones are innaccurate. The planets were COLONIZED. That's why they all have the same gravity, genepool and languages.
    • holymrack, on 03/15/2008, -1/+20Same with Serenity / Firefly.

      The planets were terraformed. Who's to say that process doesn't involve gravity and planet-wide climates?
      • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Well I doubt you can terraform gravity but you can certainly pick planets similar to earth to terraform. If I was going to terraform one of the planets in OUR solar system I probably wouldn't pick Jupiter.
    • JackHarkness, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7the language thing is still an issue. they were stollen during the egyptian era(at least 4000 years ago) and now they all speak modern english(about 300 yeas old). Eh? that said I don't want to be reading subtitles or haveing jackson translate everything
      • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+10they didn't speak english in the movie. They spoke a variation of ancient egyptian. It was very realistic. well... 'realistic' being a relative term in a sci-fi movie.
        • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Indeed, they were actually speaking an actual modern variation of ancient egyptian. They actually sent a group of linguists to study a small group that still spoke it.
      • girlpirate, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5But isnt that technically Jacksons job description? and the advanced races would be able to communicate for obvious reasons. The Jaffa for instance ought to be able to speak english. Without that ability they wouldnt be able to infiltrate earth or other english speaking planets holding the human hosts the Goa'uld desire.The Goa'uld who gain knowledge from their hosts. such as Language. The Tollan , Asgard and Nox don't even need an arguemnt.
        Plus. not every planet was colonized with ancient egyptians. Of course that all applies more to the show not the movie. but yeah.
        On another note, I am a dork.
        • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Well no one on the planet spoke English in the movie anyway.
          • girlpirate, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1no. but by the time the first episode of the series started they did.
            Like I said though. My comment had more to do with the show.
          • Blazekun, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1The reason they speak English in the show was because it would be too difficult to learn to speak their language on every new planet they go to.
    • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1I don't remember any inter species breeding in stargate.
  • manova, on 03/15/2008, -1/+36I'll pick Serenity to defend. All planets in that movie had been terraformed for humans so, yep, they would have picked similar size (therefore gravity) planets. Plus, I don't remember them flying to different regions on the same planet to say that each planet has only one climate. They really hopped from place to place on different planets. Actually, that is the way most movies do it.
    • Balanced, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3I'm not an astrophysicist, but I believe the problem with Firefly/Serenity's cosmology is that it's described as one system with several dozen habitable planets. There's a relatively narrow band where an earthlike planet can form and survive. That's why many consider terraforming Mars theoretically possible, but Venus is unlikely. For some unexplained reason the system Firefly takes place in has an incredibly massive habitable band.

      Good show (and movie). Just don't think too much about the physics.
      • Asrrin29, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2I am an astrophysicist (student) and you are correct about the "Goldilocks Band" usually being narrow, but new data from the Jovian moons of our solar system indicate that Moons near planets that are similarly sized as Jupiter may also be inhabitable, artificially extending the "range" of the Goldilocks zone.
  • ZenMojo, on 03/15/2008, -0/+34Seriously? Alien and Stargate for "easy interbreeding with aliens?" They're genetically morphing symbiotic creatures, not knocked up girlfriends.
    • DeFex, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2They do suffer from "its broken" syndrome whenever there is trouble that some of their tech could get them out of. let the machead scriptwriters write around the tech instead of "breaking" it when its convenient for their rehashed story.
    • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Alien Resurrection = hot Ripley/Alien sex = ugly-ass homicidal mutant alien baby.

      That movie was so ***** horrible. What other movie can you destroy half of earth in a massive explosion and then have the main character declare "Well, we saved the world!"? Of course, the 'Ripley' in that movie was also a mutant/alien hybrid thing, but I doubt their genetics were similar enough to allow for that kind of inter-breeding.
      • vmos, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2the ugly ass mutant in alien4 was simply the next stage of the queens reproduction cycle, given that this queen already had some human DNA, nothing to do with it ***** ripley (whihc btw is a horrible concept)
        • BrandonWicks, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1There is no Alien 4... We will not speak of this again.
  • DeFex, on 03/15/2008, -0/+6They should do a government study to see if people entering dangerous situations prefer not to wear a red shirt. ill take $10,000,000 grant for that if there is any government people here!
  • Pillage, on 03/15/2008, -0/+11I think the "People Moving in slow motion in space" is more due to the large and bulky space suits then the physics.
    • WarnerK, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3Well in 2001: A Space Odyssey, they move slowly without suits, as well. I noticed it when I first saw it a long time ago, but accepted it as an aid to their attempt at making their zero gravity imitation look real.
      • Pillage, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Alright I'll give ya that.
      • wolferz, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3in the scenes inside the ships at the beginning of 2001 a space odyssey they move slow because their shoes had Velcro on the bottom. The book explains it.
    • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Very true Pillage. Does NO ONE watch NASA TV? It's just how people move in those suits.
  • carl25, on 03/15/2008, -0/+9in sunshine, when they spoke in space you couldn't hear them. You could hear them in the suits via the radio
    • SquigglyP, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1the air-lock sequence where the guy froze to death, you could hear all of that. That's probably the rule breaker, along with the other sound effects you hear outside the ship.
    • caoine, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7Sunshine getting check marks for fire in space and weird effects from "exposure to vacuum" goes to show how little the creator of this chart paid attention to the movie or understands what really happens in a space exposure scenario. Sunshine is one of the only movies to ever depict such exposure realistically.
      • freexe, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2It's that that that he got frostbite from the exposure. There is conduction in space, so nothing to take away your heat.
        • Taciturn, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Mace got frostbite from touching the exterior of the ship. He grabs a handhold before going into the airlock.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2It was very realistic in many aspects but the instant freezing was not (from my understanding). Being in the cold vacuum of space is not the same as being dropped in liquid nitrogen. You radiate your heat into space but it can't be too fast, certainly not instant.
    • gd1z, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1edit: I can't read. Digg down.
  • Sornos, on 03/15/2008, -0/+19I think 2001 should get a clean bill.
    A vacuum is not instantly deadly, and as for slow movement in space, it's more of a technical limitation of the film at hand. It's not like they could have easy movement.
    • schnitzi, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Agreed... Dave Bowman sure didn't move in slow motion when he was exposed to the vacuum!
  • Iggins, on 03/15/2008, -1/+7Go star wars!!
    I agree with Total Recall comment...
    Chick with three knockers: √
  • opusaz, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2An odd chart. Check marks mean fail, and no distinction between pass and does not apply.

    But yeah, I prefer my sci-fi with good sci in it.
  • radu79, on 03/15/2008, -3/+22The article is *****:
    1. Not all planets have Earth gravity.
    True, but humans/alines would probably only go to planets that are compatible with their bodies.

    2. Planets should have diverse climates, instead of one unified climate across a "desert planet" or "forest planet."
    No, it depends on the inclination of the axis of the planet, revolution period, rotation period, etc.

    3. Asteroids or other objects shouldn't be able to float close together without falling into each other's gravity.
    Like, say, those in the asteroid belt, or those in the rings of Saturn?
    • ostracize, on 03/15/2008, -0/+32. Don't the non-gaseous planets in our solar system qualify as mostly unified climate? I thought this one was pretty inaccurate too. I mean, we have examples right on our doorstep.
      • radu79, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3I guess he meant unified climate that can support human like life. Yes, Mercury and Venus are hot as hell, and Mars is cold as hell. However, all the planets are colder around the poles and hotter at the equator.
      • directedition, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Gases move a lot. Tectonic plates take their time.
    • Darthyoshiboy, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4Thank you sir, I was going to begrudge them these same points until I saw your post.
    • BrandonWicks, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1In the asteroid belt, the asteroids are huge distances from one another, not at all like the asteroid fields from[insert space movie here] Around a planet they don't fall into one another because whilst in orbit they're technically falling into the planet. An asteroid field as depicted in Empire Strikes Back could never exist because the asteroids would either fly away from one another and be separated by a vast distance, or be drawn in by a concentration of gravity and condense into a single body.
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/15/2008, -4/+2You cannot expect the morons in Hollywood to get their science accurate. These are the same guys that made that ridiculous nose-down helicopter scene in the James Bond film "Tomorrow Never Dies".

    Anyway, for most Hollywood people, it's all about the action and marketing. Real outer space is perfectly quiet, slow, tedious, and boring...all things that make potential movie goers and their $$$ go elsewhere.
    • vmos, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1out of all the things wrong with "tomorrow never dies" you pick on that?
    • Woknblues, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1you are right. and that scene with the helicopter is one of my all time favorites to rip on. that stupid nose of the helicopter chased them down for like twenty minutes. worse than any of the mentioned oversights on this article
  • dhughes, on 03/15/2008, -1/+5 How about spaceships that bank when turning as if they are an airplane.

    Not physics but just as annoying is in many movies everyone speaks English, the bad guys speak English with a British accent.
    • oojamaflip2006, on 03/15/2008, -0/+5Would you prefer it if they spoke with a French accent?
    • fakekevinrose, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2eddie izzard thanks you
      • paidhima, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3 Oh, I'm...oh.
        What is it, Leftenant Sebastian?
        Well, it's the rebels sir. They're here.
        My God, man! Do they want tea?
        I don't think so. They've brought a flag.
        Damn, that's dash cunning of them!
    • AdamWest2122, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2I always assumed that was to aid the artificial gravity by angling the ship so that the force of the turn pulled things down instead of to the side, at the same time the ship would suspend its artificial gravity generators and save power. Perhaps artificial gravity severely screws up turning so they are forced to disable it as they turn and don't want people spattered on the walls. xD
      • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Still, if you're flying a spaceship and it just has thrusters on the back, you're not going to be banking very sharply at all. BSG got it right by putting small perpendicular thrusters on the fighters.
      • dhughes, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1 If that's the case they're going to be splattered on the back wall when they accelerate forward if the artificial gravity can't handle a simple turn, going forward at the speed of light is really going to cause problems!
  • adml_shake, on 03/15/2008, -1/+14 * Faster-than-light travel is probably not ever going to be possible."

    Well thank you for your little fact. I'm sure the guys at NASA and everywhere else working on this problem will just go home and give up now that you've weighed in on the subject.

    • zephyear, on 03/15/2008, -4/+5yeah uh, i doubt anyone at NASA (or anywhere else) is working on FTL. seeing how it's theoretically impossible (except for maybe wormholes, which we don't even know if they exist). i mean, i know NASA is a moneypit but i think they're too busy working on stuff like laser propulsion and solar sails for travel.
      • koenigje, on 03/15/2008, -3/+1Working on For The Loss??? Dang, crappy job.
    • schnitzi, on 03/15/2008, -5/+3Oh yeah, NASA's famous faster-than-light technology lab.

      Funny when you don't know anything, you can end up looking stupider than the person you're trying to diss.
  • incaseyoucare, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7According to NASA:
    "It is very unlikely that a human suddenly exposed to a vacuum would have more than 5 to 10 seconds to help himself. If immediate help is at hand, although one's appearance and condition will be grave, it is reasonable to assume that recompression to a tolerable pressure (200 mm Hg, 3.8 psia) within 60 to 90 seconds could result in survival, and possibly in rather rapid recovery." (Bioastronautics Data Book, Second edition, NASA SP-3006)
    There are some cases of people surviving limited exposure to space-like vacuum and surviving without injury.
  • augustwest30, on 03/15/2008, -0/+22001: A Space Odyssey, may possibly contain faster-than-light travel.
    • Fxer, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1You should read the rest of Clarke's Mythos. The End of Childhood gives you a good idea of what might have happened to Dave, and 3001 makes it clear that nobody is traveling faster than light.
  • blakespoorbrain, on 03/15/2008, -0/+32Brought to you by:

    The people who take the fun out of everything.
  • pudgyv, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2I view films to be entertained not to get a science lesson.
  • ErrorS, on 03/15/2008, -3/+32I hate these kinds of lists.. people memorize one liners about physics and think they know enough to debunk *****, it's annoying.
    For starters, most FTL travel in sci-fi finds its own way of fixing it. In Startrek, they lower the mass of the ship by bending the space around them ("Warp Field") to move faster than light. In others they create holes in space to travel through (I think FTL in Star Wars works like this).
    Sound travels in space if it has an atmosphere to move through.. gas clouds will transfer sound waves, explosions will transfer sound waves (to the extent of the explosion and waste gas). Consider two ships right next to each other, one blows up, the fireball reaches the other ship, the other ship will hear the explosion.
    Just about every planet and moon in our solar system has a single climate.. it's arguable that the gas giants do, but because they're giant balls of gas noone really cares. All hard planets and moons, EVERY SINGLE ONE, with atmosphere and without, have the same or similer climates across the entire surface.
    and I dunno if people knwo what 'faster than light' is or not, but the lasers in StarWars obviously aren't your traditional laser.. I'm pretty sure they dont travel at light speed, as a matter of fact I seem to remember them moving slower than your typical bullet. Phasers in startrek (I know it wasnt brought up, but someone thought about it) aren't lasers at all, they're weaponized tractor beams.

    you people suck at being geeks, im disapointed.
    • Xondar, on 03/15/2008, -3/+1Why am I not living in a tropical climate? After all, you maintain that "All hard planets and moons, EVERY SINGLE ONE, with atmosphere and without, have the same or similer climates across the entire surface." But it's funny cause I see freaking SNOW when I look out my window. Not a palm tree in sight.

      You're over-rationalizing.
      • billbillbilly, on 03/15/2008, -1/+4becuase the general climate of our planet is not tropical.
    • shadeOfGrey, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2Even if the enterprise can lower it's mass down to one electron, it still can't go faster than light, so no.
      I'm not going to hear a ship explode near my ship just because some of the debris and fire from the explosion comes into contact with my ship. That's not the same as sound transferring through an atmosphere, not even close.
      I agree though, that Phasers and blasters aren't the same as lasers so we shouldn't assume they're as fast as light since they're obviously portrayed as being much slower than the speed of sound.
      • ErrorS, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1They travel through 'subspace' where they technically have no mass? I dunno the details, I'm not *that* much of a Trekkie.. but they have a way to solve it (fiction obviously) and it's enogh for me.. If I can believe in a tractor beam, transporting, Klingons and interspecies breeding I can sure as hell believe they're traveling faster than light.
        As long as sound waves have a medium to move through, you'll be able to hear them.. gas is enough. If the fireball reaches you it means there was gas to burn the fireball and something for the sound waves to move through. If you're standing on an asteroid in space and someone throws a rockat this asteroid, it will transfer sound waves to your feet. That's just the way it works, dunno why you're trying to argue this one? It's pretty ***** obvious. Atmosphere isn't a requirement, you just need something, ANYTHING (other than space) for the sound waves to move through.
    • wenomspitta, on 03/15/2008, -1/+3I dig your every word, man
    • Jimmeeee, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1You're right on every count. Oh, and Star Wars lasers aren't really "lasers." IIRC, they shoot compressed, superheated gas or something along those lines.
    • KipBond, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1And there is sound in space: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ...
      ... just not audible to the naked ear.
  • Ulteriormotive, on 03/15/2008, -1/+22This chart is more inaccurate than the movies.
    All Planets have earth gravity: I don't remember these movies saying ALL planets
    All Planets have one climate planet-wide: again don't say ALL planets
    Communication with aliens : translator or colonies
    Exposure to vacuum: some of these got it right
    Fires in space: wouldn't most space craft carry oxygen tanks
    Dodging weapons: what speed do energy weapons travel at?
    Move in slow motion: hard to move fast in a space suit
    Faster than light: people used to say we would never fly faster than sound
  • marcus1060, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7Buried.
    It was completely wrong about Stargate.
    In Stargate, we only ever see one planet. So saying "all planets have earth gravity" cannot be confirmed. And for the easy communication, it wasn't easy communication, remember they had to get the expert in. And for interbreeding, they where humans too.
    • MASTERPL, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1Don't they send a M.A.L.P through the gate first to check to see if the planet can sustain human life?
      I know this is about the movie, but I've seen quite a few eps where they lose the malp because the planet is a giant ocean, etc
      • buughost, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2yup thats right, so really the claims on this article about stargate are innacturate
  • cheeseron, on 03/15/2008, -0/+3did anyone notice the chart in the thumbnail and the actual chart are different?
  • Merrick178, on 03/15/2008, -0/+8I'm a Stargate/SG-1/Atlantis nerd and that made me very angry.
    All planets were chosen for having very close to Earth gravity.
    The Goa'uld and humans/jaffa don't breed. The Goa'uld are parasites, they take over other organisms. And Jaffa are still human, they've just been selectively bred to have certain traits that the Goa'uld can exploit, which would make them more of a sub-species.
    • girlpirate, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1this is totally off the general topic but...I wouldn't consider the Jaffa a sub-species so much as a slave race. The Goa'uld, when it comes down to it, are pretty much useless without the Jaffa and Humans whereas eventually a way is found for the Jaffa to survive without the symbiotes. right? Even though the Goa'uld have all of that intelligence they can't do ***** with it, and wouldn't have it if they didn't utterly rape other living beings mind, body and soul. also. One could argue that having those selectively bred traits that allow you to carry a symbiote and thus be strong and live a long life could be seen almost as an advantage. Not taking into account the fact that they are slaves obviously and dependant upon the symbiote.
  • AngusMustang, on 03/15/2008, -0/+14"Easy communication with aliens" for Contact??? The whole movie (which takes place over years) is about establishing communication and how difficult it is.

    Lay off Isaac.
  • Pritchard, on 03/15/2008, -0/+7"You can't have fires in space, unless there's oxygen leaking out somehow."

    I never knew fire was an oxygen-only thing. Can someone explain fire a bit more to me? I thought there were other combustive elements which would produce fire on their own, without oxygen.
    • billbillbilly, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4there are. however there would be literal tons of oxygen aboard any space going vessal to support the life
    • wolferz, on 03/15/2008, -0/+1You need more than something combustible to fire, you also need an oxidizer. Oxygen, however, is not the only oxidizer. It's just the most effective.
  • thzae, on 03/15/2008, -0/+4I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave.
  • PabloIV, on 03/15/2008, -0/+13I was gonna sit here and debunk the hell out of this list but everyone above me did a pretty good job of it.
    Way to go digg, this list sux.
  • centran, on 03/15/2008, -0/+2The "lasers" in Star Wars do not travel at the speed of light. They are blaster "bolts". It is presumed the technology works by encapsulated high-energy plasma within a magnetic field and firing it as a bolt. There would have to be some kind of projectile fired to sustain the magnetic field and plasma.
  • HalsMyPal, on 03/15/2008, -1/+2ill argue the zero gravity column.
    there is no such thing as zero gravity. every time someone says something is in zero gravity it actually means they are in orbit and a constant free fall. for example if you do the math using f=G * Mm/r^2 of a person on earth and a person at the altitude of the space station, the force of gravity of the person on the space station will be i think about 98% of that of the person at sea level but since they are basically constantly falling off the face of the earth it just looks like there is no gravity. and for things that one could argue are not in orbit there is also the fact that gravity is infinite no matter what the mass so therefore a person actually exerts a force upon themselves.

    also there is a sequence in apollo 13 where tom hanks dreams about the door in the odyssey flying off while they are in space. i would like to point out that in that they are not wearing suits and do not expand nor freeze and would not give them a "clean bill of accuracy." and apollo 13 is inaccurate in other places, but those are historical.
    • SHv2, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0Isn't that the point of the article though? He's having a dream, why would that affect waking physics?
    • deanoplex, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1His wife has the dream. Dreams=physics violations.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.