Seed is meeting their contractual obligation as members of the American media by offering some science-based Oscars. This is a rare year in which I really don't care at all about the actual awards. I haven't seen any of the movies nominated for Best Picture, and I don't really have much interest in seeing any of them. The only reason I'll watch any of the telecast is to see what Jon Stewart does (my prediction: he'll be terrifically funny to his usual audience (liberal bloggers), and will completely lose the septuagenarian demographic that is the primary target for the Oscar telecast, and he'll never be asked to do it again. Sort of like Steve Martin a few years back.).
As such, I probably wouldn't bother to hype the Seed article, either, but they solicted comments from the various ScienceBloggers, and quoted several of us, including me (page three of the article). I said some mean things about Serenity, so I half expect death threats from Whedon junkies. Anyway, if you want to yell at me for dissing Joss's knowledge of astrophysics, here's a convenient comment thread.
- Log in to post comments
They're not very far off from the star. The system was incredibly rich in small planetoids and loose material within the star's habitable zone, that with the right artificial gravity and terraforming can sustain human life. Result: habitable surface area far in excess of Earth's.
If you're going to complain about the science, complain that the bodies were magically preserved by being hermetically sealed. (Real bodies would have liquified, due to the vast numbers of anerobic bacteria they're filled with.)
They're not very far off from the star. The system was incredibly rich in small planetoids and loose material within the star's habitable zone, that with the right artificial gravity and terraforming can sustain human life. Result: habitable surface area far in excess of Earth's.
I re-watched the opening of the movie while Kate was installing some software on my computer, and I don't buy it. At least, not if we're supposed to believe that the factual information presented in the opening sequence of the movie is correct.
It's a nice retcon, but no.
Caledonian beat me to it. I'm a biologist, so it's offences against biology that (heh) bug me in movies. Physics, schmysics, what do I know from physics? It never used to bother me that I could hear ships and lasers in space until one of you interfering physicist busybodies pointed out the problem. :-)
It never used to bother me that I could hear ships and lasers in space until one of you interfering physicist busybodies pointed out the problem.
Oh, that's an easy one to get around. You just have to believe that in the future, people have evolved better ears...
Another reason to watch is to see whether Philip Seymour Hoffman or Bennett Miller keep an old pact and bark like a dog in lieu of an acceptance speech...
Where I first heard of this:
http://turnberryknkn.livejournal.com/396065.html
And the NY Times article the post above references (note that this requires registration):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/movies/redcarpet/02teas.html?_r=1&ore…
My personal favorite explanation for battle sounds in space is that they're computer generated on war-capable ships. Creatures evolved in atmosphere expect and can gain advantage from auditory cues about their environment. Sensor systems tie into analytical processors that assign useful sounds to various phenomena, preferably broadcast through discreet surround speakers for locational data.
Skwid, that's -- that's -- beautiful. *snif* My inner dork salutes you.
It doesn't, however, explain why I still hear the lasers when I am (the camera viewpoint is) outside of any ship. And Chad, I can accept better hearing, but not THAT much better.
Damn meddling physicists mutter mumble...