Should Hollywood Movies and TV Shows Be More Scientifically Accurate?

Two years ago, my Physics I professor mentioned the movie “Gravity” when talking about torque, velocity, and other basic physics concepts… because the movie’s writers got them all wrong. He warned his students that the way Hollywood depicts physics will make it more difficult for us to understand real-world physics.

In a way, he’s right. We watch movies and TV shows “believing” (or getting used to the idea) that huge explosions can result from minor collisions, people can jump across huge gaps, people can stand up after getting hit by a heavy object… Yeah, in the back of our minds we know that cinematic effects are added to scenes to make on-screen stories seem more interesting than everyday life. But some subtle unrealistic depictions in movies and TV shows can seem realistic… so realistic that we choose to believe them without question.

“The most frequent sci-fi physics sin is, without a doubt, the incredible sounds emitted by all those zooming spacecraft, all those exploding planets, all those laser beams whizzing by. As every student learns very early on, sound waves need a medium through which to pass in the form of vibrations to be heard. Air, water, the membrane of your eardrum–all are sufficient media to transmit these vibrations. And as we all know, the cold vacuum of space is unfortunately devoid of anything substantial enough to serve as a transmissive medium. It’s true, however, that those unfortunate enough to have their spacecraft destroyed be in a spaceship while it was exploding would certainly hear quite a racket for a few split seconds from inside, as the sound vibrations passed through the ship itself and into what was left of the cockpit’s pressurized atmosphere as it broke up. But once the damage was done, we’d be back to space’s normal, somber silence. But hey, I guess all those sound designers and THX-equipped theaters need to be used for something, right?” (Source: PopSci)

On the other hand, sci-fi films and shows like “Star Trek” have inspired future STEMists. A lot of techies and “Star Trek” fans love to talk about how the show introduced the idea of the cellphone, but there are, of course, other inventive concepts that the show introduced such as the tablet.

Remember when the iPhone was revealed back in 2007? There were rumors about how Apple will compete with cellphone companies, but no one expected Apple to introduce a “button-less cellphone”.

The iPhone gained popularity SLOWLY. Today, a lot of people (especially young adults, teenagers, and pre-teens) are obsessed with using touchscreen smartphones for gaming, messaging, camera, news, shopping, and social media apps. But back then, can you believe that few people realized how valuable the iPhone’s multi-functional capabilities are, let alone how a “button-less phone” is possible?

So, should movies and TV shows be more scientifically accurate?

In some ways, yes. Movies that try to tell more believable stories like “Gravity” should get their scripts reviewed by scientists. Fun fact: Neil deGrasse Tyson (the iconic guy behind the “We got a badass over here” meme) complained about how the stars in the night skies shown in “Titanic” were inaccurate, and James Cameron updated the scenes after hearing Tyson’s complaint because he loves science.

In other ways, sci-fi should still be promoted in the entertainment industry.

One of my favorite sci-fi scenes of all time is from the movie “Blade Runner”, starring Harrison Ford. That movie’s villain, Roy Batty, is an AI robot who said one of the most emotional movie quotes of all time – his “Tears In Rain” monologue:

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

You don’t really have to understand what that movie’s about. Those two things I mentioned about the villain can make some viewers think about a future of “Astro Boys”, robot ethics, innovative things, … etc.

A lot of things that seem unrealistic in Hollywood films now may end up becoming real in the future.

What if, in the future, someone invented special listening devices to hear sounds in outer space? That’s a far-fetched thought, but I guess it’s an interesting thought.

I read Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea” when I was in elementary school, and little did I know that Jules Verne is regarded as an influential man for many inventions that characterize the 20th-century. I’ve seen Leonardo da Vinci’s odd sketches of planes and tanks when I was a kid too, and little did I know that he imagined those vehicles before someone built them.

It’s pretty evident that some people come up with creative ideas and solutions that are related or inspired by unrealistic phenomena depicted in films. So, because of that, I’m against the idea of making movies “more scientifically accurate”.

Instead, I’d like to see more STEM educators teach students about biology, technology, physics, etc. through analyzing popular films that students have most likely seen. That should keep students interested in STEM, and help them better understand abstract STEM concepts.

Does True Altruism / Unconditional Love Exist?

“Does true altruism / unconditional love exist?” Some scientists argue that they don’t exist because people expect rewards from their acts of kindness. …If that’s the case, then everyone who has sacrificed their time, energy, and lives practiced love out of selfishness rather than for the sake of others’ well-being? Love is not imaginary, and so is egocentrism. /// I agree with those scientists about how people are inherently self-centered. In this self(ie)-centered culture, we need to remind ourselves that other people’s happiness are more important than our own… and act with compassion. /// There are people throughout history and in our lives today that give unconditional love. Denying that is just downright disrespectful and is perpetuating egocentrism. 😧

Re: “… I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”


There are those that empathize others without putting in the effort to totally understand them, and those who wish that they really understand who they are empathizing.

Being one of those types of people is alright; it is only human to value each other’s lives.

However, it is outright inhumane to simplify other people’s life stories.

Despite the good intention behind Ms. Lena Dunham’s comment (to relate to women who had gone through abortion such as her mother and friends), her trifling comment implies that it is easy for anyone (including herself) to understand the emotional turmoil and stressful decisions that abortionists dealt with through impregnating oneself and signing the paperworks.

I hope that Ms. Dunham realizes that putting oneself into the shoes of others only makes you relatable to who you are mirroring on the outside, not inside.

Although I believe that killing people (including unborn babies) is never morally justifiable, I also believe that people have the right to control their lives.

I may not go through great lengths to understand abortionists, but I care about them and am trying to reflect my sympathy through this blog post.

I pray that those who are contemplating on and have decided on what to do with their child(ren) the very best.

baby-phillip-05

Coulomb’s Law

Here are some important notes about Coulomb’s Law:

  • any two charged objects will create a force on each other
  • opposite charges will produce an attractive force
  • similar charges will produce a repulsive force
  • the greater the charges, the greater the force
  • the greater the distance between the two objects, the smaller the force
  • since the forces are force pairs of each other, they will always be equal in size and opposite in direction
  • the net force on a charge is the sum of the forces from all the other charges

Regenerating A T-Rex

Scientists may be able to regenerate a T-Rex from the remains of an unborn T-Rex and genome sequencing.

Because the baby was found with its mother and medullary bone intact, scientists can extract a lot more DNA than a standard bone.

dino-513281

Scientists have already been modifying the genes of a chicken embryo to develop dino-like fibulas.

According to Dr. Madsen Pirie, director of the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), “Dinosaurs will be recreated by back-breeding from flightless birds.”

Since scientists have only discovered short fragments of dino-DNA, they don’t know how to modify a bird’s DNA to replicate their ancestors’ DNA.

The only way to put together a dino-DNA is for scientists to combine millions of short fragments together and figure out which order the fragments should be placed in.