In space, no one can hear you say "Um, actually..."

The sound is generated by your own ship. Your ship has a hyperspectral sensor system, and your computer reads all the sensor input and generates a soundscape for you to hear. Why would we give up a critical, directional sense just because we're in space? If it is possible to detect a Romulan ship behind me, I want my ship to play a ship-like sound that appears to come from the direction of the other ship.

@GBart

Жыл бұрын

Like modern sports cars that play fake engine noises so you feel like you have a more powerful engine, even though these days, engines just make less noise, and a loud sound usually indicates a problem

@josephrion3514

Жыл бұрын

I agree. especially because we are wired little monkeys that need that stimulate. yes please this!

Old supervisor of mine, lifelong nerd, said "Star Trek /Expanse are science-fiction, Star Wars is science-fantasy".

@Interstellar-in5wb

Жыл бұрын

Space fantasy. Fantasy set in space

@wstavis3135

Жыл бұрын

Star Trek is NOT science fiction, it is also science fantasy.

@robertt9342

Жыл бұрын

@@wstavis3135 . Provide the objective standards that assigns a piece of work to fantasy of sci-fi?

@genesises

Жыл бұрын

@@robertt9342 common sense of not literal strawmanning the words fantasy and fiction. as for their defitions i'm sure you can figure them out yourself. context matters, so basically the definition is "made up" or "not scientific/factual", with differences to the theme.

@H3LLS4NG3L

Жыл бұрын

@@wstavis3135 What? There are so many spin-offs and at least half of them focus on science/technology; Voyager being the best at it.

This video should have mentioned and given credit to The Expanse for working hard to get this stuff right.

@boterlettersukkel

Жыл бұрын

Lets not forget Michael Okuda that did a lot of work for star trek.

@davidhand9721

Жыл бұрын

The expanse has what I call science Easter eggs: little moments that the untrained eye could easily miss, but to us, the homework put into those moments is evident. Like the way their thrusters are pointed toward the destination as they decelerate on the latter half of their journey; presumably they are accelerating and decelerating at 1 g most of the trip to fake gravity. The depictions of survival in vacuum for a short period was also very gratifying to see, along with a whole lot more I probably don't have to tell you about. However, they certainly don't get _everything_ right by any means. The lack of FTL in the first season was a clincher for me, but then they go ahead and feature the gates. Even before that, they have a (SPOILER WARNING) ET that is implied to have telepathic, instant communication between elements and is compatible with Earth biology and human neurophysiology enough to incorporate humans into their collective. I'm trained as a biochemist, so I have a special appreciation for how unlikely this is. The big glowing ball of energy on that colony planet at the end of that season irked me, too. Not only in terms of what this thing could possibly be and how it worked thermodynamically, but why would the detective need to touch it in order to influence the machines? Why would anyone build an interface that necessarily kills its user? It's just very impractical and I'm not buying it. Still, it is definitely one of the best researched sci-fi series out there, and one of my personal favorites as well. Really strong paragon Shepherd vibe.

@cellie_bellie

Жыл бұрын

As well as Interstellar and Apollo 13.

@Isaiah_in_space

Жыл бұрын

@@davidhand9721 A lot of the alien technology in the expanse is kind of hand-waved, but it is explained specifically in the books that the protomolocule is not just luckily compatible with human/earth biology, but is specifically designed to hijack existing biological systems and incorporate them into its own processes. It adapts to its host as much as it modifies it. All the other planets that have ring gates had their own biology, that lead to slightly different structures. There is even a scene where an alien mosquito analog bites a human and dies because some molecule has different chirality in their ecosystem and the human version is toxic for them.

@josephguy757

Жыл бұрын

@@davidhand9721 there are things the expanse didn’t get right (Some orbital mechanics in season 2 and again in season 4) but what you highlight isn’t really one of them, the books go into a lot more detail in how the protomolecule works and how it gets around the FTL communication problem (tiny singularities within each molecule that act as a “gate” allowing them to create shortcuts through space). The protomolecules are not biological, but tiny nanomachines that deconstruct and reconstruct cells and proteins around them.

I'm glad someone covered this topic. I thought it was a documentary for half my life. I kept thinking my uncle was an ewok.

@darkangelprincess101

Жыл бұрын

Don't let them lie to you, my neighbor is a wookie. I have undeniable proof

@redneckshaman3099

Жыл бұрын

I'm addicted to pigger nussy 🤠

@intricatic

Жыл бұрын

@@redneckshaman3099 You must be an ewok too.

@redneckshaman3099

Жыл бұрын

@@intricatic once you go black, it's like smoking crack ❤️

@intricatic

Жыл бұрын

@@redneckshaman3099 What's smoking crack like?

Pedantic comment: 2001 is a *very *realistic depiction of space travel (including being absolutely silent when the POV it outside). I think he just mis-spoke at about **8:02**, 2001 *is* a potential documentary. It's certainly more educational than most! 🙂 (oh, and the spinning space station was big enough to work pretty well. Arthur C. Clarke knew his engineering!)

7:59 I thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was an exception by being accurate compared to the rest ?

Next thing you'll be claiming that Jurassic Park was "just a movie"!! Come on, I can almost always tell when they're using real dinosaurs in movies.

I love telling dad jokes, sometimes he even laughs!

@hansolowe19

Жыл бұрын

🤔🙄😕😒😢

@ObaydaOnTop

Жыл бұрын

@@hansolowe19 lol

Great video, but I feel that NASAs ability to deal with incoming astroids may be overstated (Cheylabinsk for example).

Warden : He drew a unicorn in space. I ask ya, what's it breathing? Homer : Air? Warden : Ain't no air in space. Homer : There's an Air & Space Museum!

For artificial gravity, there is also thrust gravity, if you can accurate a ship fast enough you would have gravity that would cause less issues than rotational gravity. The Expanse does this by having the ships built more like skyscrapers. That show does a lot that matches physics, and when it doesn't it often is aware and gives an in lore reason of why they are breaking physics again.

@thepackerssmacker8188

Жыл бұрын

Thrust gravity??? You would have to constantly accelerate for that to work. Unless you have FTL capabilities,this is impossible

@altrag

Жыл бұрын

@@thepackerssmacker8188 No, it would be possible. The people on board the spaceship only need to accelerate 9.8m/s in their own frame of reference, not in any outside observer's frame of reference. From an outside perspective they'd get closer and closer to c but would never actually need to exceed it (corresponds to those hyperbolas on the standard 1+1D spacetime diagram). Of course, being able to maintain that high rate of acceleration for any significant length of time would require engine capabilities is far beyond what we can currently even imagine in order to not require a planet's mass worth of fuel. And you also have to figure out how you're going to reverse the direction of acceleration halfway through the trip without turning everyone on board into bloody pancakes. So, probably not ever going to happen for practical reasons, but in theory its perfectly valid without requiring FTL or other new physics.

@JasonTodd339

Жыл бұрын

@@altrag thats a shitty rendition of Zeno's paradox and wont work

@altrag

Жыл бұрын

@@JasonTodd339 No, its not. Its an outcome of special relativity. It would only be Zeno's paradox if you tried to do it in the reference frame of the spaceship, but that is not what the scenario entails. Also, unlike Zeno's paradox, where the runner obviously finishes the race, an outside reference frame would never see the spaceship "finish" crossing the FTL barrier. It does indeed just get infinitesimally closer and closer without ever crossing the line. The difference is that Zeno's paradox is an artifact of misapplying calculus, while the spaceship's "paradox" comes from the Lorentz transformation (which describes the relationship between what two observers would see from different reference frames while watching the same sequence of events). Of course calculus didn't exist in Zeno's time and I'm not sure if he ever solved his own paradox, but under the logic of modern mathematics the paradox arises from the fact that he's reducing both the step size and the time interval simultaneously. When you analyze it properly, those two infinitesimals cancel out and you're left with the expected algebraic answer. PS: Another fun outcome of the Lorentz transformation is length contraction. That outside observer would also see the spaceship getting shorter and shorter as it gets closer to the speed of light until, from their perspective, it becomes shorter than the wavelengths of light used to detect it at which point it effectively disappears (it doesn't _really_ disappear of course - a more sensitive detector would still see it, but that detector would have a practical limit as well and so on until you run out of ideas for building ever-better detectors). Special relativity is unquestionably weird from a place of pure intuition, but is actually fairly understandable if you spend enough time with the math. Unlike quantum mechanics or general relativity, the allegories and metaphors commonly used to describe special relativity are fairly straightforward and don't have _too_ many "its kind of like this intuitive thing but not really" caveats.

@JasonTodd339

Жыл бұрын

@@altrag yeah nah, still would not work from the perspective of an observer on the ship, which is who'll need the benefits lollll and the energy required in point blank insane

Excellent episode, thank you all. (Crikey, how young do you look in that flashback episode! 😄). Keep up the sterling work.

One simple thing that always gets me: In movies, spaceships are often shown firing their trusters in order to keep moving at a steady speed. However, as there is no air resistance in space, you don’t have to do anything to maintain your motion. If you fire your thrusters you’d actually be accelerating.

@NihongoWakannai

Жыл бұрын

It's possible ships would use their thrusters a lot to consistently accelerate, but they never show ships having to provide reverse thrust in order to slow down towards their destination. They just seem to magically slow to a stop

I’d love to hear about good and bad science fiction books! Pushing Ice, The Hail Marry Project, Troy Rising series, Sunstorm, etc, etc, etc.

@TheRealSkeletor

Жыл бұрын

Ender's Shadow (written more recently than Ender's Game in the same universe) gets its science mostly correct.

You didn’t actually cross off 2001. In fact it was shown and described as being accurate - at least where Dave is blown into the ship from the pod.

@totheknee

Жыл бұрын

1/2: The AI is super inaccurate, especially for 21 years ago. The only thing AI can do is image/sound recognition, and that only after billions of trials and errors for very specific circumstances. If you look at the current state of "software engineering" (if one can even call it that) you would know we will never create a true AI in our lifetime. Perhaps we could do it with real programmers from the 70s, but OOP/docks/clouds/design patterns/micro services/AGILE and other ideological bull crap has completely ruined our ability to program CPUs. (One programmer at Microsoft actually claimed--in all seriousness--that one could get a PhD in figuring out how to draw Unicode text on a screen at more than 5 frames per second.)

@totheknee

Жыл бұрын

2/2: We spend more time and money designing/debugging _programming languages_ than we do actually programming the processors to do what we want. The amount of weight and baggage we add each year to software/paradigm bloat is more than the return we get back in CPU productivity. It's like when a star loses energy by fusing iron. And we all know what happens when a star collapses under its own weight... 💣

Well... On spin gravity. A lot of those movies or shows with them, not all of them, but many of them, do have huge stations. Stations that dwarfs the ISS. So a fair few of them are in the realm of plausible. Also, it discounts that one might opt for less than earth gravity. Yes, one 1g would be nice. But maybe not needed for most situations. Also. While having a spinning ring is the most popular depiction of this concept. It is really not need to be in the form of a ring. You just need a tether and a counterweight. Just like spinning a bucket of water. This make it a lot cheaper to do. You still need a long and strong tether. But there is need for extreme or monumental engineering. We see this design in fiction too sometimes. Though it very uncommon to see the simplest form of this with just one long rope tether. Generally is some form of engineered structure that is still pretty massive, even if it less massive than what a ring would be. And the gradual gravity reduction can have its benefits too. So it is not unrealistic in the slightest.

@marcelluswallace6240

Жыл бұрын

The funny thing is, the tether doesn't even have to be that strong. Imagine splitting the ISS in half and attaching those halfs to one another with a 100 m long tether. You only need 4.2 rpm to simulate gravity in such a setup. The tether must only be strong enough to hold the weight of the ISS at 1 g, which is 440 metric tons. I'm no specialist on steel cables, but I'd imagine that there are many bridge steel cables that carry a comparable weight or even more.

@Cythil

Жыл бұрын

@@marcelluswallace6240 Yes. No need for any ultra strong nano tubes. But I do think something like a Kevlar tether would be more likely to be used, then a steel cable. Simply due to the weight reduction. After all every kilo you save on lunch cost is a huge savings. No special science here. We are not building a space elevator, after all. ;)

@gordonn4915

Жыл бұрын

Also Starship is 50 meters tall so bolting two of the tanker versions together give the 100 meters needed. They are structural for more than 1g loaded with fuel, empty has a ton of margin. Plus you get three free for every moon landing,

@ginnyjollykidd

Жыл бұрын

So the spinning mass at the end of the tether must be huge if it encompasses everything needed to live and work. And it needed a counterweight, much like binary stars. There would be more people on board than just the few who were in _2001: A Space Odyssey._ The scene where the stewardess is walking a circle from "upright" to "upside down" is a cool depiction of how simulated gravity would work. But since it was in such an enclosed space, it did not indicate proper perspective. The work stations should, to us who are outside looking in, be "sideways" on the "wall" instead of on the "floor" as depicted, in relation to the stewardess walking the circle. It was a good try. But there were still problems. Bending down or moving your arm would be a jerky affair, too. Try doing that on one of those spinning rides. In either direction, up or down. The mass on a tether would have a counterweight, perhaps a companion living space, but to connect, the tube required would be disorienting and cause stress on the bodies experiencing less and less force, then more and more on the other side.

@Cythil

Жыл бұрын

@@ginnyjollykidd It depends. In general, spacecrafts are not to roomy. The ISS do not have a lot of living space. And what you use as a counterweight might simply be another living space module. Or it could be the fuel tanks with main thruster for the spacecraft. All depending on what you want to do. For example. Think of a spacecraft that is made for a long endurance interplanetary mission. This will take several months, so the designer though it would be best to include a spin grav tether system. The ship depart from orbit burning it main thruster. It only burns it from a short while to get up to speed, then turns off. Now comes the long coasting section of the journey. The part that takes the most amount of time. So the ship split in the middle. Uses it RCS to separate, and then put a spin on both sections. When it starts to get near its target, it uses the RCS again to stop the spin. And can now just reel in the two sections and use RCS for minor corrections as an extra safety. The two ship parts couple together again. The ship start to burn it main thruster again, this time to slow it down, and after that you're now in a stable orbit around you the planet you were going to visit. From here you can choose to split again and spin if you want. Or you can keep it as it is. Depending on mission profile. But the benefit is that during your journey had spin gravity to make life a bit more comfortable, and make sure your muscles do not atrophy too much.

@scishow space, you forgot to start this video with, “Um, actually…” 😂 Love your videos!

It was obvious Star Wars was not a documentary. The Stormtroopers couldn't have been that bad at aiming.

@RamdomView

Жыл бұрын

Real life statistics of gunfights show that Stormtroopers (in the main trilogy at least) have realistic accuracy against the protagonists and are crack shots against other mooks.

@boterlettersukkel

Жыл бұрын

"These blast-points... Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise." Obi-Wan A new hope.

@robertanderson5092

Жыл бұрын

To understand storm troopers watch the beginning of Men who stare at goats.

Love your channel and your videos guys keep up the great work! Someone as myself who likes to study/learn about the real universe and watch sci-fi shows and movies I enjoy them weather or not their exactly accurate. Unless it's a sci-fi movies that is closer to real Science then I would care since I would want to know how exactly something would work based on what we know. Also just fyi I'm planning on going to college to study in Visual Arts, Creative Writing and Illustration, and maybe film. But anyways I am wanting to write sci-fi stories. And I'm thinking that If I write a story that is based on real facts I'll have to be sure to know what to study. And also rewatch these videos as well

@user-jk1dp8xz9g

Жыл бұрын

أنت تختار ما تحبه لكن القدر لا تعلم عما يكتبه رحلة موفقة

Reid, is by far the best host!

Firefly is one of the few space operas to get the sound thing right.

We would see the asteroid from Armageddon, at minimum, several decades in advance. But how long would we need to execute a plan that would push an asteroid about the size of Pluto off course far enough?

I think spaceships making noise in space makes sense, because in order for a spacecraft to propel itself it has to push matter away. It would just be hard to detect because your ears would have to be between the matter being expelled from the thrusters and the source of the vacuum in space, which should technically be in every direction, but it sure would be interesting to set off a smoke bomb in space and see where all the smoke goes. Would it just make a ball of smoke, or would it make an ellipse? How long would it last?

@H3LLS4NG3L

Жыл бұрын

I imagine the smoke would have a weird shape, probably elliptical from the point of ignition, unless you diffuse it; picture the shape of a flame of a candle. If its perfectly diffuse then it would definitely form a ball.

@j3ckl3r

Жыл бұрын

but space is a vacuum, not microgravity like inside the ISS. the smoke should go towards the source of the vacuum, not form a ball. the gravity and atomic forces would have to be stronger than the vacuum of space in order for the cloud to stay together, which explains why galaxies need so much dust to form, and not having enough dust can prevent a star from forming. there needs to be enough mass for gravity to pull everything together, or it will be sucked into space, but then where do those stray particles end up?

Love the reference to Zenon!

You can also pick up these "electromagnetic" waves using a sense other than hearing, because another name for these waves is "light".

@eduarddoornbos2409

Жыл бұрын

Visible light is only a small part of the spectrum

Shocked to hear a Xenon reference in 2022, what a throwback!

Nope, it says at the start "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". Totally happened.

You guys did not just name drop Zenon. I am shooketh.

The science in Soylent Green was pretty sound!

In Armageddon, there was a throwaway line about a 'rogue comet' sending the asteroid our way. I think someone found about the Near-Earth Object tracking. So then they basically copied _Meteor._

the closest a scifi series came to REALISM is the show THE EXPANSE (from weapons, to acceleration gravity and travel time) seriously theres nothing quite like it 😎😎😎😎 Also the series FOR ALL MANKIND is pretty realistic ... but thats not normal scifi but more like HARD SCIFI

@LettersAndNumbers300

Жыл бұрын

OK MAN

@LENZ5369

Жыл бұрын

Leaving aside that their propulsion system and power generation seem to be magic adjacent; their engine output is magnitudes more powerful than any weapon in the show. They are firing off missiles and railguns while blowing energy out the back that is on the scale of Earth's total energy consumption -it's like Star Trek ships having giant crossbows as their standard weapons. They would have been better off just aiming their engine exhaust at the enemy.

@OverlordZephyros

Жыл бұрын

@@LENZ5369 true but still doesn't refute my point that its the closest in space sci-fi tv. They also have alien spores that somehow made giant space gates to others star systems that also have living beings inside it... I mean you gotta have some suspension of disbelief 🙃

@LENZ5369

Жыл бұрын

​@@OverlordZephyros They all compromise in some way or another; so 'realism' is pretty much context (and watcher) dependent. For instance, in the context of space warfare: Expanse space combat is more 'realistic' than Star Wars and also StarTrek but is it particularly ahead of Battlestar Gal? In fact I have yet to see a better presentation of potentially realistic 'scifi-space' warfare than in Andromeda (AI controlled ships that carry AI controlled, somewhat autonomous drones/fighters/missiles/etc that engage at distances which usually make direct control from the 'mothership' impossible due to the delay). Ofcourse Andromeda has a bunch of other nonsense but it scores high in a space combat context. Expanse is a lot more 'realistic' or rather 'relatable' than what most mainstream watchers have seen (SW, ST, etc.). Things like the concept that your allied ship in a battle could be destroyed before you even see the enemy arrive or receive a call for help; is not relatable to most.

It saddens me that this video somehow needed to be made. We aren’t a species meant to last.

One thing you missed.. Dog fights in space. A ship in space would NOT manoeuvre like an aircraft,

exceptional use of spoiler warnings. very respectful, I approve!!

Dude deep space plasma is the undertones to every horror game

2001 had a rotating 'life hab' - I expect that Sir Arthur C. Clarke 'made' it big enough for something close to 1G

@TWX1138

Жыл бұрын

I don't remember it being particularly covered in the novel. Now in _Rendezvous With Rama_ and the sequels there's a lot of discussion on how the diameter of the titular ship and its angular velocity impacted the physics, affecting everything from how the human vessels had to maneuver to attach to it to how trajectory of flight through the interior would work respective to the "floor" that the explorers would walk on, but I couldn't rightly say how accurate the science was. It is very common for even authors with the best of intentions at the outset to have their science take a backseat to plot development when it's necessary.

@snorefoot

Жыл бұрын

@@TWX1138 Just remember - they always do things in threes ;-). Just don't ask about 2010 - good book; lousy movie. (Side note - in 2001 Clarke was going to a moon of Saturn - only way to get there was via Jupiter. Kubrick was doing 'no expository dialogue' so couldn't explain Jupiter, so Clarke changed the destination - book & movie being done hand-in-hand.)

@stevevernon1978

Жыл бұрын

@@snorefoot they didn't go to Saturn because the special effects team could NOT come up with a way to show the rings that Kubrick would accept (i.e. didn't look like crap)

@snorefoot

Жыл бұрын

@@stevevernon1978 Not as I heard it all those years ago - how do you explain the necessity of involving Jupiter in the trajectory without expository dialogue? Kubrick asked if they could ignore Jupiter, Clarke responded 'no, it's on the way' so Kubrick said 'then that's where we are going."

How can a movie 12-54 years old be spoiled? Did they just discover internet access and KZread last year or something?

Does this mean that The Expanse is a documentary?

I like to believe that the massive energies from the futuristic weapons and exploding ships are being heard through the interference they cause to the electronics and other technologies inside the spacecraft and/or communications gear.

Being good at detecting and actually averting collision are totally different scenarios. As ultron said ... ( he's winding up)

One common-ish answer for having sounds in space is that, in-universe, they're generated by computers to provide additional feedback and aid situational awareness(another is that the documentary film crew has microphones placed inside and/or on the surface of all the various ships, fighters, etc. 😛 ).

@borttorbbq2556

Жыл бұрын

Honestly that's always been my opinion is that 9 times out of 10 even if things are able to make sound the only reason it actually makes sound is either because you ended up hearing it through the calms or you end up hearing it appearing at because computers AI computers AI you know such things cause you know why blowing up a ship isn't really that interesting just seeing the explosion if you don't hear it

Thanks! HONORS TO YOU ALL

There was one part in the tv movie Earthstar Voyager where the ship apparently catches up with radio waves and the teenaged crew, or one who was big into "vintage" stuff, started dancing along to the music they could hear on the speakers. It was fun, but how realistic is that?

@the_once-and-future_king.

Жыл бұрын

Well if you're travelling fast enough to catch up with radio waves, you'd encounter 3 separate but connected problems _listening_ to them. 1. If you overtake them, the music would be backwards because you'd encounter the waves in reverse (as in you'd pick up the last emitted waves first). 2. If you match velocity, you'd only pick up the wave you're parallel to. (So you'd only hear the music in that particular wave.) 3. If you want to listen to the song, you'd have to overtake the waves then go backwards at the same speed the waves are travelling forward. Obviously the directionally opposite velocities would mean you'd not be able to listen to the music except as an incredibly short and incomprehensible blast of noise. So theoretically, yes you can pick up old radio waves, but listening to them would be impossible, unless you overtake, come to a standstill and allow the waves to catch up with you. And in terms of space travel, that would be a very wasteful use of fuel and time.

Ships in many sci-fi works regularly travel (with respect to normal space anyway) far faster than the speed of light, and we are supposed to be chuckling at their artificial gravity?

how about some stuff from: The Expanse?

I’m disappointed in humanity that anyone needs to be told this or that science shows feel compelled to address such a claim.

These space movies show spaceships engines constantly thrusting. Big fire ball shooting out of the back. Like a jet plane. It isn't necessary. In space you only need to fire the engines to get you moving forward and once you're moving, just to change direction.

Are they sure I can't get in a "laser sword" fight?

buddy~ supeer , 🙌

You didn't mention the best space show that nailed the science and physics... FIREFLY. 😁❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ Shiny.... 😉

Pls, talk about the expanse, the best Sci fi show ever, and the most scientifically accurate, I think!

So, if they can interpret the vibrations of space plasma into sound, maybe the sounds of the Star Wars dogfights are just the audio interpretation of the plasma bolts being fired

@H3LLS4NG3L

Жыл бұрын

That's an interesting thought. Maybe it would be useful for pilots to be able to hear certain noises in the vicinity, instead of relying solely on radar/visuals.

Cool that Babylon 5 was not mentioned. It's still all kinds of 'popcorn fun' for sure but at least they got that space was.... just space. The Station spun for gravity, but there were still non spinning ships with some type of artificial/magic gravity. They didn't portray space dogfighting like air combat which was really refreshingly smart for it's day.

@John_Smith_60

Жыл бұрын

Babylon 5 handled the star furies well (except for right after launch because jms insisted, despite everyone telling him he was wrong, that the spin of the station would make the star furies go in a curved trajectory), but several of the alien ships, including the white stars would often bank like airplanes.

Love this episode. 1st comment on the channel!!! After 5 or 6ish years of following

As a pastafarian, i strongly support any and all progress towards spaceships or other research that could get us close enough to a black hole and get spaghettified.

With my brain running on pure logic and with my love of science being as it is there are very few movies especially sci-fi and fantasy movies I actually enjoy. Thanks so much for sharing. Great job. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

The five fundamental forces in physics: 1. gravity 2. electromagnetism 3. the strong nuclear force 4. the weak nuclear force 5. The Force (May it be with you.)

10:50 The word you're looking for is "nauseated", not "nauseous". Since we're being pedantic. 😉

I love hard scifi!

Please can you do a video of science that sounds like sci-fi but is actually real

@aracelylopezpsyd5794

Жыл бұрын

That would be very interesting to watch!

You wouldn't need the whole ring in a Space Centrifuge, just a 100m long truss that rotates around its center, and a habitat on both ends (or a habitat on one end and equal-weight storage on the other); that shouldn't be too expensive...?

Total Recall is implausible?! Say it ain't so!

2:00 This is assuming a solar system object, something in orbit around the sun. It it is an extrasolar object like ʻOumuamua we may only have a few months from discovery to impact. And if it is going super fast, say 30% the speed of light we might only have a couple of days.

OMG! Thank you! I now feel TOTALLY validated about all my pedantics complaining about movie science 🤓

no mention of babylon 5?

@bbartky

Жыл бұрын

Yea. That was a weird omission in the spinning spacecraft section. 🤷‍♂️

Wait. Doesn’t spaghettification (did I get that right?) disappear with larger, galaxy sized black holes?

I knew when I saw Star Wars on opening day that it wasn't a documentary. Star Trek & Doctor Who, however, are dramatized documentaries.

Does anyone know how accurate the Martian was?

Oh my god it’s like a space opera

@0:30 Oh yes I resemble that remark. I do have a really hard time enjoying many movies these days for that very reason! Not just SciFi/Fantasy/Comicbook stuff either. Most action movies and even a few romcoms take really insulting liberties with the laws of physics. I can see it for Space Operas and stuff but why do we need to make up cartoon physics to keep people entertained these days?

1:50 Texas needs to be avoided ... I mean, Texas need to be in space. But bombed there. And replaced by asteroid. I think I drifted off in the wrong direction. ;p

I don't think most people appreciate the gravity of making a Sci Fi movie.

@7:00 another stupid fallacy; neither Voyagers 1/2 nor Pioneers 10/11 have "left" the Solar System. They are still well within the Sun's gravity well. They are on escape velocity vectors, but are nowhere near the "edge" of the Solar System.

Guy's head exploding in zero atmosphere, Outland :) "In space nobody can hear you scream" Alien 2 But but I have gravity plating ;) Almost every space ship ( in movies)

It's great news that the Flux Capacitor didn't make the list :-)

I'm fairly fascinated by how combat would realistically work in space. Most movies and games depict it like aerial dogfighting, because Star Wars directly lifted from WWII films for its space battles and everyone just followed suit. It's certainly great fun, but I understand that realistically speaking, space combat would look far more like naval combat: slow, typically involving fairly large crafts, and taking place over fairly large distances.

@souledgar

Жыл бұрын

On the contrary, orbital mechanics and the vast distances and speeds involved would make space battles be one of two extremes: extremely slow at long ranges or extremely quick (as in seconds) at short ranges. For example, if I wanted to shoot down the ISS while in another orbit, my missile would have to make transfer orbits, slow down or catch up to the the station . It’ll take hours just to intercept. On the other hand, I could plan a haphazard orbit that intersects the station momentarily without matching , but the intercept speed would probably be so high we zip by each other. One show I’d recommend to watch for realistic space combat is The Expanse. The above doesn’t sound exciting, but the show does a really good job of making realistic space fights just as fun as pew pew dogfighting

@RamdomView

Жыл бұрын

Consider playing Children of a Dead Earth to see for yourself. Days or even months of waiting interspersed by maybe hours of trajectory adjustments and a few short minutes or seconds fighting to the death.

Zenon was really good

Martian. One of the better and scientifically sound films

I'm a believer in the scientific method. Let's put some humans in mars without a helmet

Launch two craft(maybe 3). teth·er them after with enough distance and material to create the helix you need for the gravity in space and they must be able to self support? I'm not doing the math for you though.

Movies? What about cowboy bebop? That is peak Sci fi. They do a good job with space.

Soooo The behemoth from the expanse got it right?

I wonder if a large chunk of asteroid could break off one that would otherwise have a non-dangerous trajectory, possibly flinging it in an unexpected way towards earth. I feel like it could be a better justification in a movie haha

Your particles wouldn’t remain in the black hole forever because the black hole itself won’t even last forever

1g inline acceleration constantly, costly but correct

What are you talking, Earth spins too, your head is moving with different speed than your feet here on earth already..

"You wouldn't hear ships explode" is not quite true. All the spacecraft in Star Wars, or any other space opera, obviously are full of pressurized gas. If you're close enough to it when it explodes, the shockwave will definitely produce an audible pop

@zacrintoul

Жыл бұрын

It would probably be more of a woosh. Depends on how efficiently they are blown apart, and how air tight their bulkheads are. Also the weapon blasts themselves could make whooshes as well if they were chemical explosives. Really depends on how much matter is released in any of the above circumstances.

@MrRobinhalligan

Жыл бұрын

If you where that close you would be dead.

In the series "firefly" space is silent.

If we could synthesize a material with a high enough density then the mass would be enough to create gravity. Then just use that material as the floor of your space vehicle and you're good to go! How dense would that have to be though?

@stevie-ray2020

Жыл бұрын

If that was possible it would be extremely difficult to propel through space, & definitely impossible away from any planetary body!

@lazyremnant380

Жыл бұрын

Let's do the math. Density is mass divided by volume. To create 9.8 m/s2 of gravity, we'll need 5.9722×10^24 kg of mass (taken from Wikipedia). For the volume, I'll just take ISS's habitable volume, which is 915.6 m3 (taken from NASA ISS Facts and Figures). That gave us a density of 6,522,717,343,818,261,249,453 kg/m3, or 6.522x10^21 kilograms per cubic meter. According to Wikipedia again, a neutron star's typical density is 3.7×10^17 to 5.9×10^17 kg/m3. So, if you want normal Earth gravity on your ISS-sized ship, your floor will need to be much denser than the densest known thing in the universe. Fortunately, you don't have to worry about this much concentration of mass collapses further still into a singularity because the Schwarzschild radius for one Earth mass is 8.87×10^−3 m. You do still have to worry about how to move this mass around though if you want to fit it on your spaceship, and I'll let you solve that problem.

@lazyremnant380

Жыл бұрын

@Say Whut? There's a lot of numbers for sure, but only one simple division is used. It's true, Earth and everything does move through space, but all we do is just circling the Milky Way's center of mass. Don't you want to go somewhere other than just circling around endlessly like a mad hamster? If you have an idea on how to move Earth to Uranus' orbit, I'd sure like to hear it.

I can't believe you missed the opportunity to say "in space no one can hear you scream"

FYI, all forms of faster-than-light travel are time travel.

10:30 humans will evolve in space by doing hand stands, got it

How We Know Star Wars Isn’t A Documentary: I don't know about anyone else, but I know it isn't a documentary because I'm not profoundly stupid.

Regarding artificial gravity, since we are diamagnetic, couldn't we just create a ridiculously strong magnetic field to repel us downward?

@SciShow Space, on a personal note, how does Reid Reimers keep up his attractive appearance over these years of production? The head shaving isn't truly necessary, but I understand it. He's perhaps dying his beard? Are there any good or bad habits? I dye my everything, struggling to keep a youthful look. If I told you in my profile pic I was 30, would you buy it? I was 47, in natural light. At 54 now, it's a bit more of a struggle. I have decades to "look my age," but few left yet to appear a decade or so younger. Being Vegan helps. I was a non-smoker and only light drinker, up till I met my current husband in 2017... There's a place in hell for partners who pull others into their addictions. Still, I only smoke an average of 5 cigs/day, and drink about 7 shots/day. P.S., I've also lived with undetectable HIV for over 25 years, artificial hips for 20, and I was a regular gym attender up through late 1996, and a lifeguard before that.

I would assume that people don't go to these movies expecting them to be scientifically accurate. Nor do I see the makers of these movies claiming them to be 100% scientifically accurate. "Sci fi" is short for "science FICTION", after all.

@Babycosmonaut

Жыл бұрын

Lmao very unnecessary yesica

too friendly with us? i want to be too friendly with you

I believe in Star Teck Spock goes back in time due to the energy used to make the black hole not the back hole itself and going faster then the speed of light IE Warp

How about a material at a ships core you could increase density and vibrations and air flow