Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Though it has it's flaws - without inertia, wouldn't the object instantly be accelerated to infinite (or light?) speed?Rel said:That's one fine rationalization right there.
Worst "science" movie
- Thread starter DreadPirateMurphy
- Start date
Dakkareth
First Post
My knowledge of the kind of physics involved comes from popular science books (Michio Kaku et al), so this may be totally wrong, but ...
They have more consistent theories now, that explicitely disallow this? To my knowledge (which is admittedly not quite up-to-date) all this rotating-black hole, Einstein-Rosen-Bridge, etc stuff always was a big Maybe - mathematically possible under certain conditions, which may or may not fit this universe. And now they have found *evidence* of one and found out it didn't work?
That said, I haven't even seen the movie. And if someone knows better than I do, as I'm sure someone will, please enlighten me ...
WayneLigon said:
They have more consistent theories now, that explicitely disallow this? To my knowledge (which is admittedly not quite up-to-date) all this rotating-black hole, Einstein-Rosen-Bridge, etc stuff always was a big Maybe - mathematically possible under certain conditions, which may or may not fit this universe. And now they have found *evidence* of one and found out it didn't work?
I don't think that was an assumption, ever. More of a considered possibility. And they didn't have such theories?One of the assumptions was that for every black hole you had a white hole that was ejecting matter. We didn't yet have theories about it ripping every little particle down to the component quarks
That said, I haven't even seen the movie. And if someone knows better than I do, as I'm sure someone will, please enlighten me ...
Last edited:
JediSoth
Voice Over Artist & Author
A crapfest called Robotjox also featured a scene in space with no sound. It was pretty impressive for such a bad movie.
So, how about My Science Project, featuring Dennis Hopper as a high school science teacher? That had some wierd stuff going on in it.
JediSoth
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
But for the rationalization to work it had to be an eliminator - even a tiny bit of inertia means you keep your direction and speed if you don't apply thrust.Rel said:Well, on the assumption that you're using an "Inertial Dampener" then you could say that the effects of inertia are merely lessened. If you had an "Inertial Eliminator" then you'd be in business!
Probably the best idea is not to look to closely and hope that in time, movie-makers will try to get it right so that in 10-30 years, nobody will remember how they did it wrong
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Mustrum_Ridcully said:But for the rationalization to work it had to be an eliminator - even a tiny bit of inertia means you keep your direction and speed if you don't apply thrust.
Probably the best idea is not to look to closely and hope that in time, movie-makers will try to get it right so that in 10-30 years, nobody will remember how they did it wrong
To be honest, I don't care that much. If a movie has a good plot and interesting characters then I can hand wave a lot of physics, so long as it is INTERNALLY CONSISTANT. Those last two words are totally key for me to enjoy a movie. Once that is violated, the rest of it better be close to perfect if they want me to retain any interest in it.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I like internal consistency and probably prefer it about "realismn", but if I can have both, I'll take thatRel said:
. (Though I wouldn't want Star Wars (or a similar franchise) to change its physics to more realistic ones, unless they would remake all 6 movies, which I (and many others) wouldn't like for completely different reasons )
