Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off

Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

jlf1961 -> Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/17/2017 8:26:42 AM)
We all know that light travels at 186000 miles per second. We all know that you cannot affect how far light travels. We also all know that two intersecting light beams will pass through each other, with zero noticeable effect. We also know that bolts of plasma travel at the speed of light (dont believe me, watch a bolt of lightening.) And finally, lasers can be deflected with zero damage to the target object with nothing more than a highly reflective surface, aka a fucking mirror. So, with the recent premier of the latest star wars movie in our local market, and the subsequent eruption of costumed fans (considering the number present, I would say my home town vomited forth every wannabe jedi, spice rogue and very short wookie hiding in the bowels of the town) I took it upon myself, along with a couple of friends who are local radio personalities, to pose some basic physics questions to these individuals. Here were the questions we posed: 1) Why do blaster bolts, which are plasma energy, move so damn slow in the 'galaxy far, far away?' Does light travel slower there, despite the laws of physics? 2) How is it that the blades of light sabers defy the laws of physics and actually block another blade of light? Those two questions were plenty enough to cause great debate among the sci fi fans, which included elaborate 'scientific' explanations, which the fourth member of our team would promptly blast into space dust. The fourth member of our intrepid team was a physics professor from one of the local colleges. While the movies require a suspension of belief, it obvious that in the realm of science fiction, at least in the movies, it requires more than a suspension of belief. Take the super weapon portrayed in the last star wars movie, it would have been a one shot wonder, since pulling all of the energy out of the parent star for the system would have eliminated the star, it would not just go out, it would be gone! And that does not even address the fact that containing that much energy in a planet would pretty much destroy the planet or, in the very least, rendered it lifeless. It does not matter that the geekdom god Neil deGrasse Tyson has already pretty much debunked the movie science already.

WhoreMods -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/18/2017 12:28:51 PM)
People started debunking the science in Star Wars about ten minutes after it opened, to be fair. It's more a fairy tale in outer space than science fiction, so expecting even the half arsed attempts at credibility people like Heinlein and Herbert spent trying to paper over the cracks in EE Smith with is probably expecting too much. At least the science isn't as daffy as the politics...

PeonForHer -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/18/2017 2:00:26 PM)
War of the Worlds: Re light: Right from the original film, which I saw as a young kid, I thought: those blister force-fields the Martian ships use don't prevent everything from going through them. Light can go through them, otherwise we'd not be able to see them. So hit the bastards with lasers! If I'd been World President during that film, I'd have had the Martian invaders wiped out before tea time, no problem.

PeonForHer -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/18/2017 2:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods People started debunking the science in Star Wars about ten minutes after it opened, to be fair. It's more a fairy tale in outer space than science fiction, so expecting even the half arsed attempts at credibility people like Heinlein and Herbert spent trying to paper over the cracks in EE Smith with is probably expecting too much. At least the science isn't as daffy as the politics... Another thing: the laser-guns on the fighter spacecraft always recoiled. Why, if they're shooting rounds that don't weigh anything? Silliness.

WhoreMods -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/20/2017 9:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods People started debunking the science in Star Wars about ten minutes after it opened, to be fair. It's more a fairy tale in outer space than science fiction, so expecting even the half arsed attempts at credibility people like Heinlein and Herbert spent trying to paper over the cracks in EE Smith with is probably expecting too much. At least the science isn't as daffy as the politics... Another thing: the laser-guns on the fighter spacecraft always recoiled. Why, if they're shooting rounds that don't weigh anything? Silliness. I'd always thought that was part of the point of building a death ray rather than shooting people with bullets in the first place: the laser beam has no mass so the gun won't kick when it's fired.

needlesandpins -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 9:42:21 AM)
Shit blows up, makes noise, and bursts in to flames, in space, when it shouldn't. Of course they are going to break the laws of all other physics to sell a film. They are supposed to have done tests on this stuff, and found that 'realistic' just didn't sell. People would rather pull apart what they know shouldn't happen. It's the Matrix Theory. Needles

WhoreMods -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 10:17:07 AM)
Was that why 2001 tanked, then? [;)] (It's years since I've seen it, but I think the external shots of the Nostromo in Alien are silent as well, and I'm sure you hear wheezy breathing and radio crackle rather than external noise in the scenes in the alien spaceship, come to that. And that's in a film where the director thinks that giant killer insects with acid for blood can incubate their larval form inside people...)

needlesandpins -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 11:04:22 AM)
I've never actually seen 2001, so I can't comment on it. I'm going totally on a panel, and something else I that I read where 'nerds' asked why film makers insisted on having fire and sound in films where it shouldn't exist. The answer was 'Because despite knowing it was incorrect, the views preferred it that way'. I also seem to remember there being questions on the shapes, and size of ships, and the fact that they were often shown being built on Earth, and yet to perform how they needed to they couldn't possibly be built here, they would have to be built in space, because they'd never get off the ground from here let alone perform up there. I'm wondering about Ridley Scott's mentality after the shocking bomb of Prometheus. Needles

jlf1961 -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 11:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Was that why 2001 tanked, then? [;)] (It's years since I've seen it, but I think the external shots of the Nostromo in Alien are silent as well, and I'm sure you hear wheezy breathing and radio crackle rather than external noise in the scenes in the alien spaceship, come to that. And that's in a film where the director thinks that giant killer insects with acid for blood can incubate their larval form inside people...) Actually, Arthur C. Clarke made sure that everything in 2001 was scientifically plausible, and it did well enough to win a number of awards. The monolith that Bowman flew into was, according to Clarke an artificial wormhole, which then as now, is theoretically possible with enough energy available.

WhoreMods -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 12:01:57 PM)
The really weird thing about 2001 is that Clarke doesn't seem to have viewed the finished version as quite plausible enough: he went through the novel adding stuff that Kubrick had dropped from the film script back in to paste over some of the stuff that he found a bit unconvincing watching the film, didn't he? BTW: N&P? 2001 is well worth seeing if you haven't ever sat through it. It's a bit less fun than the other big SF film from '68, though...

jlf1961 -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/27/2017 2:16:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods BTW: N&P? 2001 is well worth seeing if you haven't ever sat through it. It's a bit less fun than the other big SF film from '68, though... Which one are you referring to? Planet of the Apes, Barbarella, Charly, Project x, The Bamboo Saucer, or Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women?

WhoreMods -> RE: Questions to ask a sci fi geek that really piss them off (12/28/2017 4:35:45 AM)
Barbarella, obvs. There's few SF films that aren't less fun than that one, though no question Planet of the Apes is great as well. (Charly's probably a better film than either but isn't fun at all.) Is Voyage To The Planet of Prewhistoric Women the Roger Corman thing where he's filmed a few dialogue scenes to replace everything but the effects from a Russian film?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0390625