public misconceptions

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Shokk
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Shokk » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:38 am UTC

Posi wrote:
Muvlon wrote:Most people actually believe that E=mc² is the Theory of Relativity.

And only two people actually understand it.

and Einstein wasn't one of them :D
I have a pair of pants.

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:00 pm UTC

That science == theory. That you can pull the secrets of the universe out of thin air with enough noodling around with complex math, somehow ending up with the only set of laws that make sense.That all true advances are made by pure reason with little to no reference to the world.

That "numerical experiments" return the same kind of insight that actual experiments do. Numerical experiments tell you (to finite accuracy) the consequences of a set of equations. That's all. Actual experiments give you the empirical behavior of the device, situation, ect, and can be used to check the appropriateness of your equations in the first place.

That you have to be an uber genius to be able to contribute to science, or understand it. That without some kind of innate talent you aren't going to be able to do it, and that somehow you end up one of those science geniuses automatically or not, without 15 years of beating your head against textbooks and lab benches at 3 in the morning.

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:10 pm UTC

Heh.. This talk of organic food reminds me of a time I went with a friend to a temple here in Bangkok that is closely associated with "organic" farming and has shops and food stalls around selling only "organic" products. He sometimes takes the whole "organic" thing overboard and I sometimes give him crap about it. Anyway, we were there walking around for a bit, and he got thirsty, so he went from shop to shop looking for bottled water to buy. He couldn't find any, and eventually said something like, "What the hell?? Why doesn't anyone here sell water?"

I replied, "Because it isn't organic?"

He was not amused.


Heh. I was at the supermarket the other day, and remarked that I would be extremely impressed if someone could produce an inorganic egg.

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:14 pm UTC

That phlostigon, for it's time, was somehow a bad theory or pseudoscience. It's actually pretty explanatory - both fluid diffusion through a membrane and heat diffusion follow similar diffeqs. Without better understanding of chemistry, kinetics, and the makeup of matter, how were they to distinguish?

Of course, eventually they caught on, and better explanations were forthcoming. Who is to say that explainations in areas of physics today, like quantum physics, while giving close to the right answer don't have entirely different mechanical underpinnings? Before you had wave optics, you had Huygen's model (which is incomplete and slightly wrong, but explanatory).


That we can all get together, shake our heads, and look down on our ignorant ancestors, when most of the ones doing the head-shaking can't grasp calculus.
Last edited by MadRocketSci2 on Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Tass » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:21 pm UTC

MadRocketSci2 wrote:Heh. I was at the supermarket the other day, and remarked that I would be extremely impressed if someone could produce an inorganic egg.

I agree

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

That mushroom clouds are produced by nuclear explosions. Many people seem to think a small nuclear explosion will produce an adorably tiny mushroom cloud, and don't know that any bomb large enough makes one.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

Peter Galbavy
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:11 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Peter Galbavy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

My personal primary annoyance, in any field of endevour, is from those who are too lazy to be educated and refuse to start at the beginning and their whole approach is the hunt for the "secret sauce" that will suddenly make them experts. With no effort. This happens very often to me in the field of computers/networks/security (especially from managers and consultants), but I am sure it happens anywhere where experience and hard work are normal prerequisites...

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Peter Galbavy wrote:their whole approach is the hunt for the "secret sauce" that will suddenly make them experts... I am sure it happens anywhere where experience and hard work are normal prerequisites...

See also free-energy enthusiasts.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:13 pm UTC

lulzfish wrote:
Peter Galbavy wrote:their whole approach is the hunt for the "secret sauce" that will suddenly make them experts... I am sure it happens anywhere where experience and hard work are normal prerequisites...

See also free-energy enthusiasts.

Addendum; the ones that think they have found the secret sauce generally turn into either free energy freaks or conspiracy theorists: Interestingly this is mostly founded on a genuine belief that because their observations of events don't match their (flawed) secret sauce version, someone must be lying.
They just never get the idea that it's them, lying to themselves.
Sad really.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

The_Cat5001
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:19 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby The_Cat5001 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:24 pm UTC

I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet:

- To have gravity pulling things down, you need air. Consequently, in an empty air lock, everything will start floating, and will only come back down once pressure is restored.

- All maths consists of solving equations. Also, all equations are solved by jotting down a bunch of stuff, putting a big "=" sign, and figuring out what number to put there.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: public misconceptions

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:33 pm UTC

The_Cat5001 wrote:- All maths consists of solving equations. Also, all equations are solved by jotting down a bunch of stuff, putting a big "=" sign, and figuring out what number to put there.


Actually, that was how I did maths until I got to calculus...
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:53 am UTC

The_Cat5001 wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet:

- To have gravity pulling things down, you need air. Consequently, in an empty air lock, everything will start floating, and will only come back down once pressure is restored.

Is that why when the no-gravity section of Crysis started, Nomad said "I've lost pressure"?
What a disturbing thought.

Also, in low-gravity, everything is in slow motion. You can still only jump 1 foot in the air, but it will be all slow and cool-looking.

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

The_Cat5001 wrote:- To have gravity pulling things down, you need air. Consequently, in an empty air lock, everything will start floating, and will only come back down once pressure is restored.

Also, some people think that, if you drop something in the moon, it will slip back down to Earth.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
Ingolifs
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:35 am UTC
Location: Victoria university, New Zealand

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Ingolifs » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:10 pm UTC

lulzfish wrote:
The_Cat5001 wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet:

- To have gravity pulling things down, you need air. Consequently, in an empty air lock, everything will start floating, and will only come back down once pressure is restored.

Is that why when the no-gravity section of Crysis started, Nomad said "I've lost pressure"?
What a disturbing thought.


No, pretty sure he says 'i've lost gravity'.

But even so, if something like that happened to you, that's not what you'd say. Instead you'd say 'Oh shit i'm falling' because that's what it'd feel like.
I belong to the tautologist's school of thought, that science is by definition, science.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Ingolifs wrote:
lulzfish wrote:
The_Cat5001 wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned these yet:

- To have gravity pulling things down, you need air. Consequently, in an empty air lock, everything will start floating, and will only come back down once pressure is restored.

Is that why when the no-gravity section of Crysis started, Nomad said "I've lost pressure"?
What a disturbing thought.

No, pretty sure he says 'i've lost gravity'.

But even so, if something like that happened to you, that's not what you'd say. Instead you'd say 'Oh shit i'm falling' because that's what it'd feel like.

Well, if it was me now, sure, but if I was a highly trained ultra-top-secret super soldier in a super suit, things might be different. Especially if I'd been in microgravity before and knew encountering it was a possibility based on my surroundings.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

MadRocketSci2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:31 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby MadRocketSci2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:53 am UTC

That your teachers (at the elementary school level especially) actually know what they are talking about. I had a substitute physics teacher that tried to teach that the lunar astronauts had to walk slowly because they were using magnetic boots to stick to the moon's surface. The moon has no gravity, you see, because it is in orbit. My normal HS physics teacher was a great teacher though, I was fortunate to have him.

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Omegaton » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:58 am UTC

MadRocketSci2 wrote:That your teachers (at the elementary school level especially) actually know what they are talking about.

AUGH so true. I had a student teacher in 8th grade try to tell us that the moon rotates once every day, so that each night the same side is pointed towards Earth ONLY at night (it turns all the way around during the day). Back then I knew the moon was tidally locked but didn't know there was a term for it, but I still knew he was full of shit.

Also in 7th grade our science teacher was teaching us about the definition of species, citing the classic biological species concept. I honestly thought she'd be able to answer when I asked about fertile hybrids, but she was quite flummoxed.

User avatar
lulzfish
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby lulzfish » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:15 am UTC

MadRocketSci2 wrote:magnetic boots

Wow. Who let him become a teacher?

User avatar
feedme
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:59 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby feedme » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:44 am UTC

lulzfish wrote:
MadRocketSci2 wrote:magnetic boots

Wow. Who let him become a teacher?


This obviously confirms the whole thing was a sham.

Speaking of, a major pet peeve of mine is people who believe the lunar landing was fake.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:16 pm UTC

feedme wrote:
lulzfish wrote:
MadRocketSci2 wrote:magnetic boots

Wow. Who let him become a teacher?


This obviously confirms the whole thing was a sham.

Speaking of, a major pet peeve of mine is people who believe the lunar landing was fake.

That's not so much of a public misconception as a private delusion. :wink:
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

mercutio_stencil
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:36 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby mercutio_stencil » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:23 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:
feedme wrote:
lulzfish wrote:
MadRocketSci2 wrote:magnetic boots

Wow. Who let him become a teacher?


This obviously confirms the whole thing was a sham.

Speaking of, a major pet peeve of mine is people who believe the lunar landing was fake.

That's not so much of a public misconception as a private delusion. :wink:

I don't mind it so much, of all the crazy conspiracy theories out there, at least it's pretty innocuous. I mean, it is really cool to think that we walked on the moon. My old A.P.Physics teacher (who was awesome, although I now suspect was lying to us an awful lot of the time) claimed he knew the guy who designed the flag waving mechanism. Apparently, that guy now hates himself for enabling all those conspiracy theorists. I don't know if it's true, but it's amusing enough I let it slide.

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby SWGlassPit » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:26 pm UTC

There was no flag waving mechanism. The flag was just held outward by hanging from an aluminum rod threaded through the top. This "mechanism" then is more or less just a bent piece of metal. The waving just happened from the spring tension that occurred when the flag was disturbed.
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

pietertje
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:43 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby pietertje » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

qetzal wrote:
Omegaton wrote:How about that science is only about facts, and that if there's any controversy at all, then we don't know anything. Or how we have to know everything to "believe" in science.


THIS. I can't stand when people argue against science because "we used to think X, but now we say Y." As if changing your mind in the face of better evidence is somehow a flaw.

Also, movies where radiation/mutagens/toxic waste causes small inocuous animals to mutate into huge man-eating monsters in a matter of minutes. Especially when they grow to 100 times their original mass without taking in any external mass!

Although I do enjoy laughing at said movies.


This. I really like Heroes, but I cringe every time I see Claire regenerate entire limbs without as much as eating a sammich, or growing some horrible kind of cancer.

User avatar
Krikkit_Robot
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:43 am UTC
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Krikkit_Robot » Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:19 pm UTC

I was reading a youtube (where logic goes to die a painful, horrible, death) comment today where the guy said that water would not freeze unless it was exposed to air. And that the reason it takes beer longer to freeze is that there is very little air in the bottle with it.

mercutio_stencil wrote:A.P.Physics teacher (who was awesome, although I now suspect was lying to us an awful lot of the time) claimed he knew the guy who designed the flag waving mechanism.



Lets add this to the list
Image

Agent_Irons
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:54 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Agent_Irons » Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:54 pm UTC

ikrase wrote:People who cannot stop freaking about bioethics

QFT.

It's incredibly difficult to do something unethical if you remember that reproductive cloning turns one person into two people of different ages. Just because you did it in the lab doesn't make them unpeople.

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Mr_Rose » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:19 pm UTC

Agent_Irons wrote:
ikrase wrote:People who cannot stop freaking about bioethics

QFT.

It's incredibly difficult to do something unethical if you remember that reproductive cloning turns one person into two people of different ages. Just because you did it in the lab doesn't make them unpeople.

Talking of cloning; public misconception based on Hollywood plot-convenience:
Clones pop out of the tank as fully formed adult duplicates of the originals, complete with personality and memories identical to the original.

Heck, even the idea that a clone will end up physically identical in every way to the original is rubbish; twins born from the same womb in conditions as near-identical as possible have different fingerprints and different Lyonisation patterns, why wouldn't clones grown in completely separate wombs to the original, often one of a different species?
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

mercutio_stencil
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:36 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby mercutio_stencil » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:40 pm UTC

SWGlassPit wrote:There was no flag waving mechanism. The flag was just held outward by hanging from an aluminum rod threaded through the top. This "mechanism" then is more or less just a bent piece of metal. The waving just happened from the spring tension that occurred when the flag was disturbed.


according to my (questionable) teacher, it was actually sprung, with the intent of inducing movement. I will not vouch for the accuracy of that claim, but that's what I've been told.

Seraph
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Seraph » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:55 pm UTC

More information on the Apollo flag then any normal person might want:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm

User avatar
kernelpanic
Posts: 891
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am UTC
Location: 1.6180339x10^18 attoparsecs from Earth

Re: public misconceptions

Postby kernelpanic » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

Antimatter bombs are feasible. And Dark matter is the same as antimatter.
I'm not disorganized. My room has a high entropy.
Bhelliom wrote:Don't forget that the cat probably knows EXACTLY what it is doing is is most likely just screwing with you. You know, for CAT SCIENCE!

Image

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Josephine » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:09 pm UTC

kernelpanic wrote:Antimatter bombs are feasible. And Dark matter is the same as antimatter.

Well, in our current state of technology they're unfeasible. that's no guarantee sometime in the future (but I think relativistic kinetic weapons would be less work).
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
SWGlassPit
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby SWGlassPit » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Seraph wrote:More information on the Apollo flag then any normal person might want:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm


This makes me wonder...Nylon is notoriously sensitive to UV light. I wonder what kind of shape the flags on the moon are in now.
Up in space is a laboratory the size of a football field zipping along at 7 km/s. It's my job to keep it safe.
Image
Erdös number: 5

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby BlackSails » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

kernelpanic wrote:Antimatter bombs are feasible. And Dark matter is the same as antimatter.


No, they arent the same at all. Antimatter is strongly interacting. Dark matter is not.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby phlip » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:42 am UTC

(Psst, BlackSails... look again at which thread you're in.)

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Cynical Idealist » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:50 am UTC

It matters what thread you're in when you see someone being WRONG on the INTERNET. :P

To travel at a constant speed, you need to have constant thrust. Even in space.

(I blame just about every single sci-fi movie ever for this.)
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby BlackSails » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:50 am UTC

phlip wrote:(Psst, BlackSails... look again at which thread you're in.)


Oops. Thats what I get for having multiple threads open at once.

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Josephine » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:30 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:It matters what thread you're in when you see someone being WRONG on the INTERNET. :P

To travel at a constant speed, you need to have constant thrust. Even in space.

(I blame just about every single sci-fi movie ever for this.)


with the exception of 2001. Loved that.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

A number of more recent ones have also done it well. Battlestar Galactica, for example, while it missed the fact that you probably wouldn't ever have fighters in a space battle in the first place, at least got their mechanics mostly right when they were spinning around and such.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ikrase
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: public misconceptions

Postby ikrase » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:43 pm UTC

I don't find the "No fighters" argument compelling but "aircraft carriers IN SPACE is dumb"

Fact that earth takeoff is easy.

Nuclearphobia. And nuclearphilia.
[bibliography]XKVCBDOSLDMSD[/bibliography]

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby phlip » Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:31 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:A number of more recent ones have also done it well. Battlestar Galactica, for example, while it missed the fact that you probably wouldn't ever have fighters in a space battle in the first place, at least got their mechanics mostly right when they were spinning around and such.

Except there was that one episode early on where they were flying vipers around on a planet and they were still drifting and maneuvering like they were in space. As if the planet was gravity-less. It hit pretty hard when there was one hovering in place (so you couldn't even pretend that they were using their non-existant wings to glide), and using the maneuvering thrusters to line up a shot... with the usual fire-the-bottom-thruster-to-start-moving-up-and-then-the-top-thruster-to-stop pattern.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Interactive Civilian
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:53 am UTC
Location: Bangkok, Krung Thep, Thailand
Contact:

Re: public misconceptions

Postby Interactive Civilian » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:14 am UTC

phlip wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:A number of more recent ones have also done it well. Battlestar Galactica, for example, while it missed the fact that you probably wouldn't ever have fighters in a space battle in the first place, at least got their mechanics mostly right when they were spinning around and such.

Except there was that one episode early on where they were flying vipers around on a planet and they were still drifting and maneuvering like they were in space. As if the planet was gravity-less. It hit pretty hard when there was one hovering in place (so you couldn't even pretend that they were using their non-existant wings to glide), and using the maneuvering thrusters to line up a shot... with the usual fire-the-bottom-thruster-to-start-moving-up-and-then-the-top-thruster-to-stop pattern.

That battle was on an asteroid, not a planet. And, an obviously small (compared to a planet or even a sizeable moon) one at that. Gravity was negligible.

However, if we are going to pick on the Vipers in BSG, we can pick on them (and the Raptors) for almost always having their main engines on and firing... unless, that is, they emitted light for the hell of it. ;)

To give them credit, though, they did get it fairly right when it suited the plot to do so. e.g. The ships didn't just stop in space when their engines cut out.
I (x2+y2-1)3-x2y3=0 science.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests