# Bad Science: Favourite SF Movie Blunders **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 10, 2005, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201 "2005-05-10T11:06:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/81 "2005-05-11T14:19:51Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Because “lightyear” is a far more universal and appropriate measurement to use than “parsec” in this case, and it’s further evidence Lucas didn’t know what he was talking about, and just picked something that sounds cool. So the length of the year is the same on Tatooine? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/82 "2005-05-11T14:27:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by CalMeacham > > 1.) Ships in SF movies almost never move as if they’re really spaceships in a vacuum. They glide and swoop as if they’re in an atmosphere. 2001 and 2010 got this right, and just about nobody else. (Some people claim the new Battlestar Galactica series does it right, but nmot from what Ive seen) > > I don’t find this one so bad. The ability to stop on a dime while in a vacuum might sound good, but I think that (i am not a physicist), properly implemented, swooping would be alot easier on contents of the spaceship when momentum is factored in. > > Sure you can go from 100 km/h ‘forward’ to 100 km/h ‘up’ very quickly, but either a) you would still be going 100 km/h ‘forward’ or b) if you managed to kill your ‘forward’ momentum in that time, the crew could hit the walls very hard. I maintain that it’s still pretty bad. Here’s why: 1.) If you have a current-technology spaceship (or a small local ship in a more advanced future) thenyou simply _can’t_ make swooping turns – that kind of thing requires either a atmosphere for you to be flying through, or else the constant nonuniform expulsion of retrorockets (or space-bending, or whatever, for futuristic stuff). The point is that _things don’t move that way in vacuum in zero-g_. Watch films of the Apollo craft in orbit to see the way things move – things spin around their centers of mass, and seem to start and stop too abruptly. Some of the “we never landed on the moon” conspiracy types even see this as evidence that the moon landings were faked. Some who thing we back-engineered alien technology from crashed saucers think this apparently weird motion is evidence of super-physical processes. 2.) If you’re thinking about the Millenium Falcon or the Enterprise using its super-science to make such apparently unphysical swoops (using constantly varying impulses or gradual bending of spacetime or whatever) in order to coddle the occupants and keep them from being turned into red jam, it _still_ won’t work. The accelerations required to make the maneuvers, especially the starts and stops, are so humongous that people would get squashed in pretty short order unless you had some sort of “stasis field” or “inertial dampers” or “gravity shields” or some such imaginmary science doubletalk device to keep the interiors of the space ships almost perfectly at rest, despite whjat was going on outside. (In **Forbidden Planet** the crew steps into some kind of stasis field that looks like a Star Trek Transporter beam, while the rest of the ship apparently undergoes massive acceleration. In Joe Haldeman’s **Forever War** people go into cushioning fluid baths, with injected saline supporting their internal organs. In either case, I’d think that after you stoppecd the interior of the ship ought to bev littered with rivets pulled out of the walls by the fictious force of the acceleration – that is, if the ship held together at all. Seems to me that some imaginary science acceleration ptrotection would be necessary for the ship as well as the people. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/83 "2005-05-11T14:28:08Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > So the length of the year is the same on Tatooine? Ah, yes. Silly me. 😉 While lightyear is in my mind more plausibly the same than parsec, simply because of it’s simple derivation, it may be different. Good catch. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/84 "2005-05-11T17:04:38Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > The ships in Star Trek presumably draw on physics we don’t know about yet There’s no excuse for their handling of biology, though. The NG episode _Genesis_ is surely the all-time worst offender. (1) Altering an organism’s DNA will _not_ cause immediate, massive morphological changes. (2) The human genome does _not_ contain any residual spider DNA, for the simple reason that humans are not descended from spiders or any remotely spider-like organisms. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/85 "2005-05-11T18:26:57Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Maybe ask him why people a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away somehow mystically manage to use the parsec at all, which if I recall correctly, is a somewhat Earth-centric measurement… It was only a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away from the POV of the storyteller. The events occur far, far in to the future for us. That’s why they speak English, say “hello”, use parsecs, etc. How’s _that_ for being an unabashed Lucas apologist? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/86 "2005-05-11T22:09:55Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Your friend is an unabashed Lucas apologist. 😉 > > Maybe ask him why people a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away somehow mystically manage to use the parsec at all, which if I recall correctly, is a somewhat Earth-centric measurement… Not too take your comment too seriously, but if you try do something like that you end up with ridiculous bullshit like “centons” and “microns” as a time unit. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/87 "2005-05-11T22:37:33Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > Well, if you’re going to complain about that, then aren’t you offended that they’re speaking English? That always bugs me . . . when they don’t even bother to introduce a black-box device like a Babel fish or a “Universal Translator” to explain why everybody on a faraway planet speaks English. Has \*_Stargate: SG-1_ ever explained why every human race they encounter speaks English, except when referring to an unfamiliar concept? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/88 "2005-05-11T22:44:47Z")
I think the main reason to wonder about the alien ships’ gravity in _Independance Day_ is the fact that they’re described as being a quarter the size of the Moon. And don’t even ask why they do a 20-meter-high flyover of the Apollo 11 site in a vessel that size. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/89 "2005-05-11T22:50:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think the main reason to wonder about the alien ships’ gravity in _Independance Day_ is the fact that they’re described as being a quarter the size of the Moon. And don’t even ask why they do a 20-meter-high flyover of the Apollo 11 site in a vessel that size. Well, to be fair the thing “a quarter the size of the moon” was the mothership. All the 15-mile ships are shown breaking away from the mothership, and in comparison they’re tiny. As for the flyover, well, I guess they’re just good navigators. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/90 "2005-05-11T22:53:39Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > The part where a giant flying saucer that flies through some (presumably near-magical) anti-gravity would crush a city by flying above it. > > -Joe I forget where I read it, but apparently, if the mothership was as big as they say (1/4 the mass of the moon, IIRC), all they’d need to do is park it in low-Earth orbit, and the tidal forces alone would exterminate all higher lifeforms on the planet. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/91 "2005-05-11T23:12:20Z")
OK, I’m going to jump on the “flame Star Trek” bandwagon. I usually let the physics goofs pass since I’m not a physicist and can usually suspend disbeliefe well enough to not let them bother me. The biology errors, though, bug the crap out of me. Most sentient beings in the Start Trek universe, with a few notable expections, pretty much all resemble each other, exept for the odd facial ridge here and there. With the twists and turns that human evolution has taken over the eons, the probability that we would look the way we do is pretty infintesimal. Even if another planet had exactly the same climate and history as ours, the chances that a sentient organism that looks pretty much like us would evolve is just about nil. Evolution doesn’t work that way. Granted, there was one episode where they tried to explain this away, and I have to give them that: the old “panspermia” theory, that life on multiple planets was “seeded” by a common DNA source. But again, over several billion years of evolution, it just wouldn’t happen, even IF all god’s chillun started with the same DNA structure. There. I feel better. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/92 "2005-05-11T23:17:22Z")
WHY wouldJabba the Hut find Princess leia so attractive? Even though (with that outfit she wore) I was having wet dreams about her! (SHe was HOT!). Still, why would a grossly obese wormlike being like Jabba find this volumptuous gal to be interesting? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/93 "2005-05-11T23:28:41Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > WHY wouldJabba the Hut find Princess leia so attractive? Even though (with that outfit she wore) I was having wet dreams about her! (SHe was HOT!). > Still, why would a grossly obese wormlike being like Jabba find this volumptuous gal to be interesting? I think it was more of a “look at me, I’m sexually humiliating a princess who is also near the top of the Empire’s most wanted list! I get the best toys! I’m so cool!!!” -Joe ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/94 "2005-05-11T23:38:24Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > How? We don’t know. It’s a black box tech that achieved the desired effect for the premise of the show. And way back in the times of Trek Classic, the writers’ guidelines actually discouraged having people go around explaining how things work precisely because it’s distracting. GR even made a comment about how in a police or cowboy or war show nobody goes around explaining the physics of firearms or the operating mechanism of the one you’re firing, you just draw it and fire. Crossing over to the world of TV, there’s the Six Million Dollar Man’s superspeed-superstrength. Problem is, his bionic limbs are, as far as we know, still attached to a normal flesh-and-bones trunk – so attempting to perform an impossible feat of strength would still break his back – unless they Wolverined him with a titanium pelvis, shoulder girdle, and spine – or dislocate/tear the flesh structures at the attachment points. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/95 "2005-05-11T23:59:20Z")
> [@Monstre](#): > > (a little blast from the past…) 😃 Wow, I’m fatally embarassed to discover that I’d used that thread to advertise my lame now-defunct student website. Anyhoo, if Superman can fly faster than the speed of light, why _can’t_ he stop both missiles? Zip to Hackensack to save Valerie Perrine’s mom, then zip to California in a fifty-billionth of a second to stop the second nuke. Easy. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/96 "2005-05-12T00:41:08Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Wow, I’m fatally embarassed to discover that I’d used that thread to advertise my lame now-defunct student website. > > Anyhoo, if Superman can fly faster than the speed of light, why _can’t_ he stop both missiles? Zip to Hackensack to save Valerie Perrine’s mom, then zip to California in a fifty-billionth of a second to stop the second nuke. Easy. Probably because every appearance of Superman inevitably leads to his powers growing even more. Sure, going super fast is neat, but going back in time with your superspeed is even better!!! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/97 "2005-05-12T00:43:23Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Probably because every appearance of Superman inevitably leads to his powers growing even more. In _this_ universe, we obey the laws of thermodynamics! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/98 "2005-05-12T00:45:03Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Still, why would a grossly obese wormlike being like Jabba find this volumptuous gal to be interesting? He’s the Hutt equivalent of [Neal Horsley?](http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php)😃 ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/99 "2005-05-12T02:38:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think the main reason to wonder about the alien ships’ gravity in _Independance Day_ is the fact that they’re described as being a quarter the size of the Moon. And don’t even ask why they do a 20-meter-high flyover of the Apollo 11 site in a vessel that size. Or why the slipstream from the low flypast obliterated the astronauts’ footprints in a total vacuum. ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_Mann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@Rich\_Mann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_Mann)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201/100 "2005-05-12T05:59:51Z")
> [@PoorYorick](#): > > \ > Most sentient beings in the Start Trek universe, with a few notable expections, pretty much all resemble each other, exept for the odd facial ridge here and there. With the twists and turns that human evolution has taken over the eons, the probability that we would look the way we do is pretty infintesimal. Even if another planet had exactly the same climate and history as ours, the chances that a sentient organism that looks pretty much like us would evolve is just about nil. Evolution doesn’t work that way. > \ Do you have a cite for that last statement? Allow me to retort. There are many cases on Earth (the only biosystem we know of) of parallel evolution. Unrelated species from different locales which fill the same ecological niche often resemble each other to the degree that they are hard to tell apart (see toads and frogs). The dolphin has a shark-like dorsal fin because it swims for a living, not because they look so cool. Evolution is not some random crap-shoot. Although random mutations provide a mechanism for change, only relative successes are selected for. We are bipeds for reasons that relate to the environment that we evolved in. Duplicate (or near enough) these conditions on another planet and you by all rights should get similar results. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-science-favourite-sf-movie-blunders/303201.md?page=6)