# Factual Scientific errors in movies... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 27, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704 "2004-08-27T00:20:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mirror\_Image\_egamI\_rorriM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e56c9b/32.png) [@Mirror\_Image\_egamI\_rorriM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mirror_Image_egamI_rorriM)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/41 "2004-08-27T05:13:39Z")
Our own **Bad Astronomer** has a whole big list of stuff like this at his website. [Bad Astronomy: Movies.](http://badastronomy.com/bad/movies/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/42 "2004-08-27T05:37:47Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > As opposed to what? Flat? I mean, can’t you just turn the glasses around to “make” them convex? > > I’m confused. Concave lenses for nearsightedness look like this in cross-section: )( Convex lenses for farsightedness look like this in cross-section: () There’s no way to reverse the concavity or convexity of those lenses by turning them around. ---
**Author:** ![LtningBug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/73ab20/32.png) [@LtningBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LtningBug)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/43 "2004-08-27T05:39:22Z")
41 posts, and no one’s mentioned Armageddon? The best part of the movie was the space station that had artificial gravity. How did they generate this gravity? The station rotated. Slowly. About the axis down which gravity was pointing. And then, a space shuttle docks with the part of the station that is furthest from the axis of rotation. I would go on about the end of the movie, but I seem to have repressed those memories (thankfully). ---
**Author:** ![LtningBug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/73ab20/32.png) [@LtningBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LtningBug)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/44 "2004-08-27T05:42:40Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Concave lenses for nearsightedness look like this in cross-section: )( > > Convex lenses for farsightedness look like this in cross-section: () > > There’s no way to reverse the concavity or convexity of those lenses by turning them around. I remember reading the book and just assuming the kid was far-sighted (and bad enough that he needed glasses to see anything around him). Was there anything in the book that indicated he was near-sighted? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/45 "2004-08-27T05:46:19Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Bolding added > > Are you serious? _That’s_ where you lose your ability to suspend disbelief? Cyclops can shoot rays from his eyeballs, but don’t expect me to believe that homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred? Wow. > > I know your complaint is in line with the OP, but the bolded sentence required me to type this response. Yeah, but I think it’s supposed to be one of those things they throw into movies like this to, y’know, anchor the whole thing in reality somehow. They don’t put the School for Gifted Youngsters or whatever it is in some totally fictional place like Bingcrosbia (even though nothing’s stopping them), they put it in Westchester County. When the jet fighters tell the X-Plane to land, they say to fly it to Hanscomb Air Force Base, near Boston, even though they could have called it Willy Wonka Air Force Base and it wouldn’t have made a bit of practical difference. They could have put three-headed wombats in the science exhibit if they felt like it, but they tried to make a realistic-lookiing Science Museum because the X-men are supposed to inhabit _our world_. That’s what makes it compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Tangent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tangent/32/3098_2.png) [@Tangent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tangent)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/46 "2004-08-27T06:23:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Concave lenses for nearsightedness look like this in cross-section: )( > > Convex lenses for farsightedness look like this in cross-section: () > > There’s no way to reverse the concavity or convexity of those lenses by turning them around. Actually, farsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the outer **convex** surface has a greater curvature (smaller radius) than the inner **concave** surface. I believe this kind of lens is known as convex meniscus. The center of the lens is thicker than the edges and it is one type of converging lens. It will act as a converging lens no matter which way light shines through it. Similarly, nearsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the inner concave surface has a greater curvature than the outer convex surface. It is called concave meniscus and the center of the lens is thinner than the edges. It will act as a diverging lens no matter which way light shines through it. You _do_ reverse the concavity/convexity by turning them around, but you don’t reverse the convergence/divergence of these lenses. [This picture shows the kinds of lenses I am talking about, but labels them as convexo-concave and concavo-convex.](http://cougar.slvhs.slv.k12.ca.us/~pboomer/physicstextbook/fig14-12.jpg) ---
**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:** [August 27, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/47 "2004-08-27T06:25:49Z")
One that I like to jump on, because it was otherwise such a good movie: In _Deep Impact_, the orbit of the comet is determined from only two (to be charitable) observations (Elijah Wood’s and the professional astronomer’s), while in actuality it takes at least three. But when that’s the worst science blunder in a science fiction movie, they’re doing pretty good. Also, the Starfury fighters from _Babylon 5_ are one more to add to the sparse list of realistic space maneuvers. They maneuver by means of thrusters mounted on long torque arms, and whenever a Starfury changes orientation, you see the appropriate thrusters firing. You also hear them, of course, but I’m willing to justify that by saying that the microphone is on board the ship (where sound could be transmitted through the structure). For another mistake, in the recent _The Time Machine_, whenever you see equations on the blackboard, it’s nonsensical. It’s not just that it’s meaningless; that would be OK. After all, I don’t know how to build a time machine, so it’s reasonable that I wouldn’t recognize the mathematics behind one. The problem, though, is that it _does_ have meaning, but the meaning doesn’t make sense. So you end up with things on the board like “the divergence of six” (in mathematical notation, of course). Which is just a really fancy way of saying “zero”. That movie also had a lot of problems with the time-lapse sequences, but I’m not sure that those qualify for the present discussion. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/48 "2004-08-27T07:31:21Z")
> [@Tangent](#): > > … eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye … I seem to recall a discussion here quite a while ago on the same question. Someone pointed out that the lenses, whether converging or diverging, are bowl-shaped as **Tangent** ’s diagram (or ‘digram’ as I originally typed it) suggests. A poster in the previous thread pointed out that filling the bowl with water will make either kind of lens into a converging one. Of course there was no mention of that solution in either the book or the movie. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/49 "2004-08-27T07:55:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Speaking of which, I still haven’t forgiven George Lucas for having Han Solo complete “…the Kessel Run in Five Parsecs” in the original Star Wars. They made Greedo fire first, but they didn’t fix this? If you’re gonna choose real units, make sure that they match the thing being measured. I don’t care even if this was intentional – it causes a Disturbance in the Force. I’ll admit that is was probably a mistaken understanding of the units. But I like it. It gives background and character to the universe. For example, modern day motorheads will refer to a car’s speed as 10.6 seconds. Obviously that’s a unit of time not speed. It’s known to the people they’re talking to that it’s a 1/4 mile time. It’s a jargon that kind of indicates an understanding, and anybody who has to ask isn’t in the know. Jargon usages among groups are the norm in realistic life, and people who speak in actual scientific terms when in casual conversation, aren’t credible. The clique of space smugglers I would deffinatly expect to speak in tons of jargon. That’s one of the reasons I love Firefly. The use of language quirks seems natural and more complete. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/50 "2004-08-27T08:04:06Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > In **The Flight of the hoenix** they say that “Henson an Stringfellow built the first heavier-than-air flyer powered by rubber bands”. as I noted in a pice I wrote for **Teemings** , this is grossly in error. Henson had long been out of the project by the time a flyer had been built. Stringfellow never ued rubber bands – he built his own stea engine(!!) His flying machine – a onoplane – looked a lot more modern than he rght Brothers Flyer, which it predated by a century. It undenabl flew, but t was not a manned craft. And it woulda worked a lot better if he’d pt a tail on it (something obvious in hindsight – but Stringfellow knew that he had no lteral stability, and I’m still surprised he didn’t think of it.) You could argue that this is a historical error, but mixing up rubber bands and steam engins is a big tech error. Do you have a copy of that article? I’d love to read it. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/51 "2004-08-27T08:09:44Z")
> [@Dooku](#): > > How do they get rid of the robot? They cut a hole in the floor of the Space Station, cover it with a blanket, then stand on the other side while the robot falls through the hole and out into space. Then they embrace. The End. Um, I hate to break it to ya, but that’s not what they do, or how the movie ends. They did the “blanket over hole” trick, true, but with metal floor paneling over a big water-tank-reservoir-thing that the lab was built over. (It was a hydroponics station, so it kinda makes sense.) They do trick/force the robot into falling into the water, but it only slows the robot down. Kirk Douglass eventually has to tackle/suicide bomb the robot into the same water tank, but it’s about 20 minutes later. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/52 "2004-08-27T08:25:24Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > They don’t put the School for Gifted Youngsters or whatever it is in some totally fictional place like Bingcrosbia (even though nothing’s stopping them), they put it in Westchester County. When the jet fighters tell the X-Plane to land, they say to fly it to Hanscomb Air Force Base, near Boston, even though they could have called it Willy Wonka Air Force Base and it wouldn’t have made a bit of practical difference. A nitpick…the X-Jet wasn’t near Westchester county when it was intercepted by the F-16s, it was supposed to be near Bobby Drake’s house. Of course, that doesn’t explain how the Air Force was even able to _find_ the “stealthy” X-Jet in the first place. Or why it wasn’t cruising at mach 2, and away from the major population centers. (Maybe they were low on gas.) And…I see that someone else has beaten me to the punch about _Saturn 3._ Sorry. :smack: And, for a nit of my own…I remember hearing about a time-travel movie a few years ago (_Timecop_, I think) that had some characters carbon-dating…wait for it…a pile of Gold. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/53 "2004-08-27T08:27:00Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But when that’s the worst science blunder in a science fiction movie, they’re doing pretty good. Except for the fact that the Earth was hit square on by the giant rock (even if it was in iddy biddy pieces). I guess the whole kinetic energy thing of the comet strike and/or the ensuing nuclear winter would have made the ending a bit of a downer. In this respect the “science” in Armageddon is better than Deep Impact. _The Core_ anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/54 "2004-08-27T09:41:23Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > A nitpick…the X-Jet wasn’t near Westchester county when it was intercepted by the F-16s, it was supposed to be near Bobby Drake’s house. > > Of course, that doesn’t explain how the Air Force was even able to _find_ the “stealthy” X-Jet in the first place. Or why it wasn’t cruising at mach 2, and away from the major population centers. (Maybe they were low on gas.) > > And…I see that someone else has beaten me to the punch about _Saturn 3._ Sorry. :smack: > > And, for a nit of my own…I remember hearing about a time-travel movie a few years ago (_Timecop_, I think) that had some characters carbon-dating…wait for it…a pile of Gold. Whah? I never said the Jet was in or near Westchester. I said it was near Boston. ---
**Author:** ![Tuco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tuco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuco)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/55 "2004-08-27T10:12:16Z")
> [@Tangent](#): > > Actually, farsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the outer **convex** surface has a greater curvature (smaller radius) than the inner **concave** surface. I believe this kind of lens is known as convex meniscus. The center of the lens is thicker than the edges and it is one type of converging lens. It will act as a converging lens no matter which way light shines through it. > > Similarly, nearsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the inner concave surface has a greater curvature than the outer convex surface. It is called concave meniscus and the center of the lens is thinner than the edges. It will act as a diverging lens no matter which way light shines through it. > > You _do_ reverse the concavity/convexity by turning them around, but you don’t reverse the convergence/divergence of these lenses. > > [This picture shows the kinds of lenses I am talking about, but labels them as convexo-concave and concavo-convex.](http://cougar.slvhs.slv.k12.ca.us/~pboomer/physicstextbook/fig14-12.jpg) Well my glasses for short-sightedness diverge light no matter what way round I put them. When I’m next at work I’ll try the water in the lens thing and see if it’s possible to start a fire. ---
**Author:** ![Tuco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tuco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuco)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/56 "2004-08-27T10:15:15Z")
Oops, forgot to add: Piggy being shortsighted was crucial to the plot, something about him being reliant on Ralph, or helpless without his glasses (like the whole group), and he cleaned them when he was nervous or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/57 "2004-08-27T10:26:14Z")
The whole math puzzle thing in the Cube was ridiculously easy to solve. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/58 "2004-08-27T10:51:14Z")
> [@AndrewT](#): > > I understood this to be deliberate - he was judging how much these potential suckers knew about spaceflight, if they swallowed it whole (as they did) he could bamboozle them with bullshit and charge them even more than he usually did. Naw. I’m pretty sure that (like the black hole thing) was just made up later by the Lucas Cult when people noticed the silly error. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/59 "2004-08-27T11:08:16Z")
> [@Tangent](#): > > Actually, farsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the outer **convex** surface has a greater curvature (smaller radius) than the inner **concave** surface. I believe this kind of lens is known as convex meniscus. The center of the lens is thicker than the edges and it is one type of converging lens. It will act as a converging lens no matter which way light shines through it. > > Similarly, nearsighted eyeglass lenses can look like this: ((eye where the inner concave surface has a greater curvature than the outer convex surface. It is called concave meniscus and the center of the lens is thinner than the edges. It will act as a diverging lens no matter which way light shines through it. > > You _do_ reverse the concavity/convexity by turning them around, but you don’t reverse the convergence/divergence of these lenses. > > [This picture shows the kinds of lenses I am talking about, but labels them as convexo-concave and concavo-convex.](http://cougar.slvhs.slv.k12.ca.us/~pboomer/physicstextbook/fig14-12.jpg) The types of lenses used in eyeglasses are more often referred to as positive and negative meniscus lenses, if that helps any, [http://homepages.tig.com.au/~flavios/lensbscs.htm](http://homepages.tig.com.au/~flavios/lensbscs.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704/60 "2004-08-27T11:51:07Z")
> [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > Except for the fact that the Earth was hit square on by the giant rock (even if it was in iddy biddy pieces). I guess the whole kinetic energy thing of the comet strike and/or the ensuing nuclear winter would have made the ending a bit of a downer. In this respect the “science” in Armageddon is better than Deep Impact. I’ll be the first to admit that I know next-to-nothing about physics, but wouldn’t a good portion of the energy of the explosion cancel out the kinetic energy of the rock? Something like ```auto /\ || <==BANG==> <==ROCK || \/ ``` Course, I guess if the difference is large enough, it wouldn’t matter… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/factual-scientific-errors-in-movies/261704.md?page=4)