You know, years ago, I used to really like Neil before he adopted this “Well, ackchually…” shtick over scientific inaccuracies in works of fiction. I find him absolutely insufferable now. It’s the same kind of brainworms as CinemaSins.
I think that Neil doesn’t understand something very vital about being a science educator which if there is one thing people know about them, it’s that they are smart as hell and whether that is actually true or not the science educator must adopt a self-deprecating, disarming character to be relatable to the audience within the context they are in because of it.
You can’t play the character of a king and be relatable if people perceive you as actually being a king outside the context of the play….
Well-put. Compare Bill Nye, who comes across as highly intelligent, yet still relatable and likable, in large part because his Science Guy character tends to be a bit of a goof, and, more importantly, because he never talks down to his audience.
Right, Bill Nye isn’t threatening or high status (in a theatrical sense) in his extreme advantage of knowledge over you and obvious superior intelligence that implies.
Bill Nye (at least his old stuff I haven’t watched him in a long time) just feels like your goofy neighbor or science teacher and your walls don’t go up because of it, you are so much more willing to consider that a preconception you had might have been wrong because Bill Nye isn’t correcting you out of a place of superiority (which again the audience will by default unfairly project onto someone like Bill Nye given the context), it’s from a place of “the universe is weirder and more fun than you thought and I am hyped in a mad scientist way to be the person that gets to show you that!!”. Same thing with Myth Busters, they were most effective when they were visibly thrilled by the privilege of getting to show people how much weirder and cooler science was then they thought, not just because it’s morally good to spread science education but also because it’s fun as hell to get to be the goofy character doing it while seeing the eyes of adults around you light up like kids. You are a magician, except you are way funnier than a magician because the result of your magic tricks is to make people permanently feel how weird the universe really is.
We hate being wrong except when an irreverent character shows us that we were wrong because we underestimated how cool, weird or goofy the universe actually is.
I suppose this an obvious case of why just valuing STEM in school is a huge mistake, someone with theater training could easily point this dynamic out and make sure they played the character that made them the best science educator possible if they were in the position Tyson is in. It wouldn’t even take any more work than Tyson is already doing, it is simply a matter of genuinely understanding perspective (the theater part) and giving a shit.
Relevant comic:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21Ah yes, loved CinemaSins, ruined how I watch movies, then became too annoying to watch.
OH GOD THE BELLS
CinemaSins is far too often just them not understanding the damn point of a scene or movie.
That’s a weird way to spell “intentionally misunderstanding the point because people arguing about it in the comments drives engagement and is therefore more profitable.”
This motherfucker watched a movie where a girl inherits all of the memories of her 4 most recent female ancestors because her mother used drugs while she was pregnant and he’s like “that isn’t how sound moves through sand”
Is that an actual movie cause that sounds wild
He’s a physicist, so he’s obviously going to comment on the physics. He might’ve commented on it if he was a geneticist, ob/gyn, or pharmacist.
I totally agree with this sentiment. This is the way I feel about Elon Musk. Although, I do have an exorbitant amount of disdain for the latter.
quoth @[email protected]
He talked about electric cars. I don’t know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Then he talked about rockets. I don’t know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.
Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard anyone say, so when people say he’s a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.
“Somebody didn’t do the research on that,” Tyson told the talk show host, making the case that if you pound your fist into a sand dune, it wouldn’t actually produce a thumping sound the way it does in the film. “You can’t thump sand.”
Oh, this is easy. Neil, the thumping isn’t for the sand its for the spice in the sand which is a near-magical substance that is tied biologically to the sandworms and when consumed by humans in large quantities lets you see into the future. Are you going to try and tell me a substance which clearly grants its user the ability to see through space-time can’t be excited mechanically with thumping it on the ground?
Actually it does work with regular sand dunes. The sequential baked layers creates a reasoning champer that amplifies sound at certain frequencies.
Which means Neil is actually upset with how much scientific world building Frank Herbert did, since it confuses people like him who haven’t studied sand dunes for decades.
This doesn’t mention anything about it working with any kind of large impact, though. It’s all about higher frequency vibrations from layers of sand moving around. It’s an interesting phenomenon, but jot what is being talked about.
The resonance depends on the size of the cavity. It’s conceivable that with different sand structure you could get different size resonating chambers. Plus even though a piano is tuned for higher frequency vibrations, it’ll still ring when you thump on it. I’d imagine that’d be the same with these chambers.
I’m just here to appreciate that you’re explaining this to a user named ‘Cave’.
What’s the opposite of nominative determinism?
Someone didn’t read the book far enough to get to the part about Drum sand
Besides the sand worms can pick up on the vibrations. It doesn’t need to be loud. Just be a consistent pattern.
So having the thump sound is there for artistic purposes. For the art. In a medium used for art.
Well, it’s more than that. I think this is even mentioned in the new movies, but there’s a phenomenon in Dune called “drum sand” that is a section of sand that somehow amplifies vibrations. Obviously it doesn’t matter how any of this works. It’s a story where, if you get high enough, you can predict possible futures. No shit it isn’t realistic. No one cares.
NdGT is a pretentious twat who needs to just shut up and sit down.
I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s bitching about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
So, you’re saying he should…pound sand?
Movie: “Y’all check out these space wizards who can pilot big space ships at FTL. Check out these giant worms that shit magic dust. Check out a Special Boy who can see the future.”
NDT: “None of this is scientifically accurate.”
I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s bitching about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
Taking an ice-pick to “Contact” because it isn’t realistic, and posting it in Tyson’s DMs every day until he deletes his account.
I feel like people take these way too seriously, like some of these comments sound like it’s personal. Its just a movie/book series if some one wants to poke some fun then just let em.
It’s a scifi series, If in their universe sands can pass vibrations for a long range, they are welcome to do whatever they want.
yeah, I don’t care if a fantasy universe is inconsistent with our standards and physics.
I only care if its blatantly inconsistent within its own rules.
I like NDT, but the dude just loves to shitpost constantly like this and its tiresome.
I think the problem is more that Tyson is "uMm AcHtUaLlY"ing in a way to try and be cool or funny, but it doesn’t come off as cool or funny what-so-ever. It’s just irritating.
If its irritating then why bother engaging with it. There is a point where you can just ignore it because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t change anything (or at least it shouldn’t).
Idk I think he does it in some misguided attempt to try to educate people. I agree it is obnoxious though.
Person who’s only job is science and who is an expert on science comments about the science of things and people find a way to complain about it.
Let the man die on his silly hills. It’s funny and harmless. Pull the damn stick out. Perhaps go pound sand.
My bitch with him is he’ll say the most stoner ass thing in the most smug way possible like it’s some insight from god.
Immediately after any sci-fi movie comes out:
Internet: hey sciencey person, how accurate was the science?
Sciencey person: not.
Internet: surprisedPikachuface.jpg
He who touches the grass controls the universe
When the planet’s massive sandworms move, they barrel forward in a straight line. But as Tyson points out, pretty much all legless, worm or snake-like creatures on Earth have to slither in S-shaped lines if they want to move forward.
“Have you ever seen a snake chase you as a straight snake? No!”
Has he ever seen an earthworm???
Sand worms have pulsating segments. Sure snakes slither but they can also move forward by pulsing. This isn’t some impossible thing.
Or maybe this snake doesn’t exist?
That’s not mysterious. It’s one of the methods snakes use to move forward across terrain that doesn’t have things to push sideways off of when they slither. Everyone knows this. Neil knows this. He’s just too busy being an ass to remember that he knows it.
I want Neil to give a scientific explanation for Leto II (2) turning himself into a sandworm.
I need that meme where he talks about kissing himself in the mirror
Tweets need to go away period. what a piece of shit content model and platform. Having a very short character limit was never the genius move people thought it was
Originally it was a technical necessity since Twitter had to work via SMS which has a limit of 160 characters. The enforced brevity was part of it’s original charm IMHO.
I know where the limit came from but no one forced them to use SMS or make an app, period.
I never understood how forcing people into so few characters was a good thing. All it did was make people post less thoughtfully and more often.
This whole thread is people pissed off that NDT posts things without thinking about how they come off so it kind of makes sense he would do that on Twitter.
I sorta get it. Limits allow for creativity. I find myself being the most creative when I work within limits, selfimposed or otherwise. That’s why I love dnd and pathfinder.
Personally it was the behemoth worms and psychic mind readers that made me think it wasn’t a documentary, but YMMV
Did you watch the segment? Even the article (which links to another article whose author apparently watched the segment) makes it clear this was done in fun.
Tyson complains about the ornithopters needing wings to fly when they should just use the anti-gravity mechanics of the gigantic spaceships. Colbert points out that the ornithopters aren’t large enough to house the anti-gravity devices.
‘Ornithopter’ also isn’t a term Herbert invented. It’s an actual word for an aircraft that flaps its wings to fly, like an animal. So he’s really complaining about the presence of 'thopters. Different propulsion techs for different situations makes a lot of sense, though; it’s not like VTOL jets made helicopters obsolete even though they’re superficially a superior option.
So he’s really complaining about the presence of 'thopters.
Did you watch the segment? He thinks the ornithopters are cool. I guess I have to spell out that the anti-gravity complaint was a joke.
Science fiction not science facts. When was the book written again? And why is an Astrophysicist giving opinions on worm biology? Not his area of expertise?
The specific thing he’s bitching about is sand physics, that is that sand doesn’t really ‘thump’.
This is something that is actually specifically addressed in the book, I’m not sure about the movie; short version is that the sand and weather on Arrakis are weird, and the sand forms more solid areas than elsewhere.
So not only is he complaining about a minor (from a realism perspective, it’s important in-universe) detail, he’s also showing that he did not read the book
Which is funny because on Earth sand actually does create resonant chambers in the desert dunes that do, under specific circumstances, drive sound hundreds of miles. It’s the phenomenon of singing deserts, that goes from anywhere between low rumbles up to flute like warble, it’s been documented since the times of Marco Polo. We even have squeaking sand beaches. So, as usual, the pedantic twat is actually technically incorrect.
In the movie, the first time Paul uses a thumper he has to dig in a few spots before he finds one that the thumper will work on.
Seismic surveys looking for oil and gas use what’s called a thumper truck, which literally thumps the ground to send seismic signals through the Earth. Those signals are received by seismometers some distance away. Geologic structures underground are detected by the way they reflect, bend and otherwise change the thumper truck’s seismic waves.
When seismologists perform these surveys near sand dunes, however, they notice their signals are not coming through clearly.
The original book finds itself in a science fiction genre only because anything with spaceships and technology is placed there. For all practical purposes though, it’s a space fantasy.
In other words, complaining about science of Dune is like complaining about poetic meter of a tax report - something you do only with the closest of friends.
There’s also a lot in there about how a planet’s ecology influences culture. Also the long term effects of banning computers. Also about how in the far future people will forget about Earth but some cultural artifacts will remain even when people have forgotten why they do things. Also about how over enough time, people may change so much they may not even be recognizable as human. Also how with the existence of FTL travel it may become impossible to escape the killer robots people will inevitably build unless someone turns themself into a worm.
Why does the Internet dog pile onto NDT over every tweet, but seems to try it’s best to ignore Alex Jones et al?
That’s a great question. I really don’t understand why almost this entire thread is so pissed at him for making some stupid tweets. Who gives a fuck about tweets? Even years ago.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is insufferable. No idea why he got that Cosmos job he didn’t deserve it and he shat on Sagans version.
Also when someone pointed out if you just look at Zendaya face se looks like a boy. Can’t stop seeing it.
Dude Zendaya’s so galactically out of your league Neil deGrasse Tyson could do a StarTalk episode on it.
Oh man why does he get off so much on being a complete fuckin boob
I’ve never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn’t scientifically accurate doesn’t ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn’t be entirely correct and it doesn’t have to be correct (unless it’s supposed to be educational).
I thought it was funny when he argued that the BB-8 droid from Star Wars broke the laws of physics because a rolling mechanical ball can’t roll uphill on sand.
He didn’t know that the BB-8 shown in the movie rolling up dunes was a physical robot, not CGI.
It could have been the stick puppet version, though, for which the sticks were digitally removed after filming. I don’t know more about that, but it sounds like you do.
Yes many were stick puppets. Some were trikes.
So did the mechanical ball roll itself uphill?
I was wrong. Despite the official StarWars Twitter claim they had the robot bb-8 on the dunes for filming, a documentary says the full robot version wasn’t done until the red carpet. However I have found videos of a large bb-8 rolling on sand. The small toy ones cannot roll on sand. (Which isn’t surprising because most toy cars can’t run on sand despite full size being able to.)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m pretty sure the BB-8 you see on film is mostly CGI. A working BB-8 prop does exist but it’s more of a reference that gets covered in CGI. It’s a common film technique that gets used these days and often those articles praising “no CGI” are often PR bullshit that stretches the truth because “practical effects” has become a buzzword.
I can prove a few shots of BB8 are CGI.
Shot4 - Notes in bottom left confirm
I obviously can’t prove it but I would assume every BB8 shot is either entirely CGI or uses the practical robot as a reference pass. Relying on a practical robot would introduce a point of failure that could delay shots and force more takes, adding cost and time to the production. The only reason the filmmakers have to use a practical effect is to give the actors a reference, all other shots it’s faster and cheaper to use CGI.
TL;DR: BB8 is mostly if not entirely CG and film companies are almost always lying when emphasizing the practical effects used in their film.
Yes much of bb-8 is cgi, but there was a video of a physical bb-8 prop rolling in sand.
When Degrasse tweeted that it was impossible, Star Wars prop artist responded with a video of the physical robot rolling on sand. I’m not going post a link to Twitter on Lemmy but you can Google it.
Yeah fair enough, I just wanted to rant about CGI. hehe
It is how he does it, not that he does it.
He’s comparing things like known sand on earth, to make-believe drum sand on make-believe planet called Arrakis. He thinks he’s being smart, but he’s really just being obtuse.
