|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Who is the Bad Astronomer?
Is this related to www.badastronomy.com? Anjouli 14:38, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I believe so; I've heard him on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. --Merovingian 14:39, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
I was referring to the guy who runs www.badastronomy.com, who I gather refers to himself as 'The Bad Astronomer'. Perhaps there should be a link to the website. Silverfish 14:53, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
Can somebody verify that? (I can't find anyhting). If not, then I think we should remove the reference. Anjouli 06:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- On the Bad Astronomy 'who am I' page, it says 'Who is this guy who calls himself "The Bad Astronomer?"', confirming that Phil Plait who presumedly runs www.badastronomy.com calls himself 'The Bad Astronomer'. Is that what you wanted confirmed? Silverfish 11:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. Thanks. Anjouli 07:58, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There is also a show with the same name on the National Geographic Channel in the US. The narrator and most of the scientists are American, so I think it's a different show.... Should it have its own page? - 126.96.36.199 16:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this would be the same show as mentioned, but I'll try to catch the one on the British National Geographic channel sometime - it may be like MythBusters and just have a different narration in the UK. --Neo 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see no reason why this page lists three different subjects (definition, then two shows). They should all have their own page. --188.8.131.52 12:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the first is just a dictionary definition, and of course Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And it may be against policy, but do the two programmes need to have seperate pages? They're both of pretty much the same premise, and the page is not yet large enough to warrent their separation out. --Neo 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any article here that lists the science goofs that are traditional or typical in Hollywood movies, especially science fiction? I would have thought to find such a list here. For example, here are a few "rules" that Hollywood seems to follow, off the top of my head:
- Sounds are always be present in the vacuum of space.
- Lasers must make interesting noises.
- The light of a laser beam must be brightly visible even in a vacuum, and it must travel slower than the speed of light, so that viewers can get a sense of the beam's trajectory over a couple frames of film.
- Ships maneuvering in a weightless vacuum shall bank when they turn, as if they are flying through an atmosphere in a gravitational field.
- Camera shots of an actor's face in front of a video display should show what's being displayed projected onto the actor's face, in focus, as if the display were projecting through a lens. It is not necessary for the projection to be reversed.
- Control panels must have high-current power running through them, so that when disaster strikes, the control panel emits showers of sparks.
- Two or more ships in space must always orient themselves as if there is a universal "up" direction agreed upon by all.
- When a ship flies by the camera while orbiting a planet, the viewer must see the ship's flight path curve. as if the planet is small enough for an observer to notice the curved path before the ship disappears due to distance from the camera.
- It is permissible for actors to wear helmets with bright internal lights that illuminate their faces and prevent them from seeing in low-light environments.
- Aliens are always humanoid.
- The hero or heroine escaping from an underwater confined space must be able to hold breath during extreme physical exertion longer than is humanly possible.
- Language barriers usually don't exist.
- Sound travels at infinite velocity. The sound from events (such as explosions) visible far away in the distance are heard simultaneously with the event.
- Computers must always make cute little noises when keys are pressed or when characters appear on the display.
And so on. I'm sure I could even find sources of examples of each of these. Is there such an article here? For now, I have created the redirect page movie science to redirect to this Hollywood science article. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposer said in part "Just a bunch of unconnected references...". Actually, there are just two, the BBC series and the National Geographic series. This page started off as an article on the BBC/Open University series. If it is felt that the Nat Geographic program is unconnected, then it can simply be reverted to the original article. However, I think a case can be made for a more general article. There are a number of books discussing Hollywood's relationship with science; Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the End of the World (Columbia University Press), Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema (MIT Press), Hollywood Chemistry: When Science Met Entertainment (American Chemical Society), Hollywood Science: Dangers from Ourselves (Columbia University Press), and Hollyweird Science: From Quantum Quirks to the Multiverse (Springer). These are all solidly reliable sources and a wide-ranging article could easily be constructed from them. SpinningSpark 22:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)