Bad science in fiction Hall of Shame

[DDE]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Tired: Comic Superhero Multiverse Movie Script Recycling

Wired: Books

Spoiler

 

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

  Hide contents

 

Oops, I meant:

Wired:  Old pre 1980s Sci Fi Books

 

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Imagine our universe is 2 dimensional. A multiverse could be thought of as many such universes stacked on top of each other. They literally exist - and together make up - another dimension. And to travel between them you need to travel in a dimension you don't normally travel in. I.e., another one.

So it goes-

1. Our world (2D)

2. “Interuniversal plane” (3D)

3. Other world (2D)

?

If this is the case, the other world does not constitute “another dimension”.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

So it goes-

1. Our world (2D)

2. “Interuniversal plane” (3D)

3. Other world (2D)

?

If this is the case, the other world does not constitute “another dimension”.

That's just pop sci fi (and the Beastie Boys, I suppose) misrepresenting the term "another dimension." It's not like there's this blob of dimensions and you can point at them and say "that's dimension 4, and that's dimension 7". Dimensions are directions, not physical objects.

The other universe isn't "in another dimension". If you were to point at it though you'd have to point in another dimension.

Point North. Point left. Point at a parallel universe.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Superfluous J

[kerbiloid]

22 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. Our world (2D)

2. “Interuniversal plane” (3D)

3. Other world (2D)

They call it "capacitor".

Apply voltage and have a fun.

21 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

That's just pop sci fi (and the Beastie Boys, I suppose) misrepresenting the term "another dimension." It's not like there's this blob of dimensions and you can point at them and say "that's dimension 4, and that's dimension 7". Dimensions are directions, not physical objects.

The other universe isn't "in another dimension". If you were to point at it though you'd have to point in another dimension.

They may discretly co-exist at the same place of space. Odd picoseconds - one, even picoseconds - another one, like flashing.

This theory also explains, how do the things disappear in your house to later reappear in unexpected places.

Edited August 18, 2023 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

On 8/17/2023 at 12:23 AM, Superfluous J said:

The other universe isn't "in another dimension". If you were to point at it though you'd have to point in another dimension.

Not to nitpick at language, but “pointing at it in another dimension” would imply it is in that dimension.

But yeah, what I was saying is that the “other world” is not another dimension in itself, it is still 2D. But to get to that world, we would need to… move through? I don’t know exactly… another dimension (3D).

But sci-fi movies constantly call “other worlds” dimensions, which (if I’m understanding correctly) they are not.

[kerbiloid]

Fortran grants you an ability of defining your own dimensions.

Spoiler

 

[StrandedonEarth]

After learning about matrices in computer programming, I leaned into the concept of extra dimensions as simply an expanded coordinate system. We use a 4d coordinate system (x, y, z, t) and computers can easily handle higher-dimension matrices, so that’s how I look at it, just add another coordinate axis. It could be used for, say, cataloging planetary conditions (lat/long/radian L/ t/pl/galaxy/uni) or galaxies or even universes 

Edited August 19, 2023 by StrandedonEarth

[Nuke]

finally saw that b5 cartoon, they zoomed into the command deck above the dock rather than below, counter to the direction of spin gravity. 

also im getting fed up with blatant misinterpretations of quantum mechanics in movies. 

otherwise it was not terribad. if anything for re-uniting the remaining cast.

On 8/18/2023 at 2:29 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

After learning about matrices in computer programming, I leaned into the concept of extra dimensions as simply an expanded coordinate system. We use a 4d coordinate system (x, y, z, t) and computers can easily handle higher-dimension matrices, so that’s how I look at it, just add another coordinate axis. It could be used for, say, cataloging planetary conditions (lat/long/radian L/ t/pl/galaxy/uni) or galaxies or even universes 

i remember when i was learning quaternions. idk what i did but i rendered my scene correctly in 3d, but projected on a plane that also ended up rotating, total inception. to this day i have been unable to recreate the bug. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Nuke

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

04:30 The kid spines would break...

04:45 ... and the skulls, too.

Probably, this means that we cannot consider this movie scientifically correct.

P.S.
On the other hand, idk what's in the movie, but in this clip they really stop moving on 04:31.
So, maybe we can.

[SunlitZelkova]

I’m amazed this thread has died. It seemed like it got updated at least once a week in 2021-2022.

So here’s a new one:

Fallout (2024), Terminator: Genisys (2015), The Wolverine (2014)-

Spoiler

Why do people look at nuclear explosions so often in Hollywood?

My understanding is that looking at a nuclear explosion is like staring at the sun; not getting flashed in the face by high beams…

 

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 8/18/2023 at 1:56 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Not to nitpick at language, but “pointing at it in another dimension” would imply it is in that dimension.

 

Just discovered this gem of a thread.. thank you for posting and bringing it onto my "unread thread" radar.

 

Since we are (within) the higher dimension.. O feel J is accueate & any direction would point to the "higher" dimensions... while also encompassing "lower"

 

If you draw a circle on a wall with a crayon & discount an depth resulting in wax accumulation... this is a representation of the 2nd dimension.

Draw a square on another wall and it is the same 2nd dimension.. located in different respective positions within the 3rd.

When I was born is the circle.. and when I die is the square.

Since our minds are firmly anchored & evolved within our 3 dimensional space our mind is predisposed to 3 dimensional logic with "lower" dimensions comprehensible.

However, this prevents real understanding of "higher" dimensions. we cannot conceive of 4 axis that are perfectly  perpendicular to on another.. much less 5 to 11. 

We cannot picture nothing, or infinite nor can we imagine tessalated shapes.  The newest remake of *Contact* had a very novel concept regarding the perception of time.

Our eyes cannot even truly perceive 3 dimensional space. Our eyes perceive flat 2d pictures & our brains interpret light gradient to perceive depth...

 

As opposed to the nomenclature employed by popular scifi.. I believe the use of dimensions is often used to prescribe *echoes / shadows* or alternate realites.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’m amazed this thread has died. It seemed like it got updated at least once a week in 2021-2022.

So here’s a new one:

Fallout (2024), Terminator: Genisys (2015), The Wolverine (2014)-

  Hide contents

Why do people look at nuclear explosions so often in Hollywood?

My understanding is that looking at a nuclear explosion is like staring at the sun; not getting flashed in the face by high beams…

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/eye-injuries-solar-eclipse-surge-following-phenomenon

Speaking of staring at the sun...

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

As opposed to the nomenclature employed by popular scifi.. I believe the use of dimensions is often used to prescribe *echoes / shadows* or alternate realites.

Dimension, universe, and reality are used interchangeably in sci-fi and it’s really annoying.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Yes. It is very annoying.

One thing KSP1 gave me a better appreciation for...

Bad Sci Fi in general...space combat amd mamaneuvers.

Like missiles shooting straight into a target when it shows the ship across the terminator and the target being on a sunny beach somewhere.

I Giggle when I see star trek battles at sub light speeds... and they face off like pre civil war battle lines? Then engage in combat.

The HonorVerse books did a good job of capturing space combat.. Stern chases & using 3 dimensional naval combat for maneuvers like rolling to position a bow shot.

 

1 hour ago, DDE said:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/eye-injuries-solar-eclipse-surge-following-phenomenon

Speaking of staring at the sun...

Was this bc they read the dev blog about the eclipse?

/s

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

The HonorVerse books did a good job of capturing space combat.. Stern chases & using 3 dimensional naval combat for maneuvers like rolling to position a bow shot.

The Expanse, books and streaming series, did fairly well also.   Until the deus ex machina of the alien portals took over

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Fallout (2024),

The Fallout franchise takes place in a fantasy universe where radiation wears off over time and you heal back to normal, 300-year-old tin cans of food are edible (and still available), people use bottle caps as currency, and most everything can be healed by injecting yourself with the correct chemicals.

Staring at a nuclear blast is the least of it.

You can't fault Fallout for science mistakes any more than you can Star Wars or Marvel. You can discuss internal inconsistencies (e.g., Ant Man still weighs his normal amount when small, but only when the plot needs him to), sure, but not inconsistencies between their universe and ours (e.g., that Ant Man can shrink)

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Terminator: Genisys (2015)

 

Any Terminator movie past the first 2 is not Canon in my brain and needs not be discussed.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The Wolverine (2014)

I don't recall but was it Wolverine (and/or his brother) who did the staring? Because he (and his brother) can heal from the blast itself, so healing from the light shouldn't be a big deal. How could he do that? See above about Marvel being special.

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why do people look at nuclear explosions so often in Hollywood?

Why not? They are round, bright, and beautiful.

Also, not always. In Cloverfield they were hiding under the bridge, and missed everything interesting above.
(Though, it didn't help them much.)

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

300-year-old tin cans of food are edible (and still available)

No doubts, that every Fallout food is sterilized with gamma-rays after packing.
(At least because the nuka-setting noblesse oblige.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation

So, probably the only questionable item is the canister itself.

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

and most everything can be healed by injecting yourself with the correct chemicals.

Either healed, or enjoyed.

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Any Terminator movie past the first 2 is not Canon in my brain and needs not be discussed.

Nothing can be the Terminator canon since they had changed the future in T2.

Only possible timelines.

Upd.
The abnormal resistance to radiation in Fallout is somehow related to the FEV, which is present everywhere.

As the Fallout wiki says, the original Fallout creators didn't have a consensus about the ghoul origin.
From time to time they accused either radiation, or FEV.

Happily, now we have the clear answer.

Spoiler

Antivaxxers died. Vaccinated became ghouls.

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/New_Plague

Wait... Oh...

Quote

The New Plague was so widespread that a national quarantine was mandated in 2053

2053 - 2020 = 33 year offset.

2077 - 33 = 2044.

Still thinking that Fallout is a fantasy?

Stop buying beer in cans. Buy only bottles, and put the caps into the safe.
How, do you think, all those cap deposits in the safes appeared?

Edited April 16 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

You can't fault Fallout for science mistakes any more than you can Star Wars or Marvel. You can discuss internal inconsistencies (e.g., Ant Man still weighs his normal amount when small, but only when the plot needs him to), sure, but not inconsistencies between their universe and ours (e.g., that Ant Man can shrink)

It's actually okay, and happens from time to time.

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I don't recall but was it Wolverine (and/or his brother) who did the staring? Because he (and his brother) can heal from the blast itself, so healing from the light shouldn't be a big deal. How could he do that? See above about Marvel being special.

It was the Japanese officer he ends up saving.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Yes. It is very annoying.

One thing KSP1 gave me a better appreciation for...

Bad Sci Fi in general...space combat amd mamaneuvers.

Like missiles shooting straight into a target when it shows the ship across the terminator and the target being on a sunny beach somewhere.

I Giggle when I see star trek battles at sub light speeds... and they face off like pre civil war battle lines? Then engage in combat.

The HonorVerse books did a good job of capturing space combat.. Stern chases & using 3 dimensional naval combat for maneuvers like rolling to position a bow shot.

Was this bc they read the dev blog about the eclipse?

/s

Issue is that even at WW 1 naval combat took place at so long range its not cinematic anymore because of rangefinders and fire control tables who was analogue fire control computers. 
But then you got planes doing dog fighting and attack runs in WW 2 or star wars. Remember starting seeing WW 2 clips of the Pacific and it looked just like Star Wars, it was obvious the other way around  
But wonder if both ship artillery and planes was used the same time anytime against ships outside of battle of Samar.  Perhaps at Guadalcanal?  Now for coastal operations this was standard but you usually used one of them I imagine. 

[DDE]

13 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Issue is that even at WW 1 naval combat took place at so long range its not cinematic anymore because of rangefinders and fire control tables who was analogue fire control computers. 

And smoke.

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

But wonder if both ship artillery and planes was used the same time anytime against ships outside of battle of Samar.  Perhaps at Guadalcanal?

An immediate thought is that this would make aircraft devastatingly effective unless one combatant had VT fuses. Main gun fire would usually sweep away or kill anyone manning the open anti-air mounts.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Issue is that even at WW 1 naval combat took place at so long range its not cinematic anymore because of rangefinders and fire control tables who was analogue fire control computers. 
But then you got planes doing dog fighting and attack runs in WW 2 or star wars. Remember starting seeing WW 2 clips of the Pacific and it looked just like Star Wars, it was obvious the other way around  
But wonder if both ship artillery and planes was used the same time anytime against ships outside of battle of Samar.  Perhaps at Guadalcanal?  Now for coastal operations this was standard but you usually used one of them I imagine. 

I cannot think of any shows aside from expanse that do a good job of capturing the Cinematic aspects.

Maybe if they leaned into the Thematics & Cinematics together they could get something analogous.

You could open to tense radar rooms, seque to point defense and flak packs and some explosions.

Now I'm wanting to binge watch terrible scifi to compile a list

[StrandedonEarth]

5 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Now I'm wanting to binge watch terrible scifi to compile a list

The Battlestar Galactica reboot was pretty good, and they took a more realistic approach to space battles, although it still seemed to somewhat degenerate into point-blank brawls…

[SunlitZelkova]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

But wonder if both ship artillery and planes was used the same time anytime against ships outside of battle of Samar.  Perhaps at Guadalcanal?  Now for coastal operations this was standard but you usually used one of them I imagine

Depends on your definition of using aircraft. Japanese scout planes dropped flares over Allied cruisers at night time during one of the Guadalcanal battles, and then the surface ships attacked.

6 hours ago, DDE said:

An immediate thought is that this would make aircraft devastatingly effective unless one combatant had VT fuses. Main gun fire would usually sweep away or kill anyone manning the open anti-air mounts.

Counterpoint to that: during one of the Guadalcanal battles, Japanese and Allied ships got so close they were able to use their AA mounts against each other as well as the main guns. It was brutal, but neither side suffered total devastation of the lighter mounts.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Depends on your definition of using aircraft. Japanese scout planes dropped flares over Allied cruisers at night time during one of the Guadalcanal battles, and then the surface ships attacked.

Counterpoint to that: during one of the Guadalcanal battles, Japanese and Allied ships got so close they were able to use their AA mounts against each other as well as the main guns. It was brutal, but neither side suffered total devastation of the lighter mounts.

Dropping flares makes sense, I assume this was the float planes on cruisers who have low payload, but you could drop flares farther out than the 5" guns could. 

And getting into 40 mm range is wild.