Slashdot Mirror


The Science of Star Wars

anonymous lion writes "National Geographic has an interesting interview with a couple of scientists on the scientific reality of Star Wars. For example, related to the cohabitation of humans and Gungans on NabooSeth Shostak states, "So maybe it's possible to share, as long as neither species has the technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other.""

48 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Cohabitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    related to the cohabitation of humans and Gungans on NabooSeth Shostak states, "So maybe it's possible to share, as long as neither species has the technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other.""

    Doesn't that qualify more as "The Sociology of Star Wars"?

    1. Re:Cohabitation by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      related to the cohabitation of humans and Gungans on NabooSeth Shostak states, "So maybe it's possible to share, as long as neither species has the technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other."

      Doesn't that qualify more as "The Sociology of Star Wars"?

      Yeah, it does seem as though the authors are making the assumption that all species are going to beat the crap out of each other. I realize that competition for resources is common among many species here on earth but we all come from a common ancestor if you look far enough back. Does this need for conquest really have to be the same for all life everywhere? If one species really had a superior advantage over another, does it necessarily follow that they will try to dominate them? I think it's at least possible that some species will learn to share resources with other creatures on their planet right away.

      GMD

    2. Re:Cohabitation by metlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, that would be largely inevitable or highly improbable.

      Survival will be the primary goal of any form of life, and survival will require consumption of resources.

      Unless the resources required for two life forms is remarkably different or there is a truly symbiotic relationship, it is quite likely that the two forms of life will be fighting with each other for resources. It may not even be intentional, but survival would require a fight at least at a very abstract level (deer and zebras sharing the same grasslands). And when you introduce complex factors into the equation, you can be rest assured that there will be a need for survival as you move up the food chain.

      If you do not kill, you will be killed - this is a very likely scenario, and if sentience is to evolve, it would need safe and secure surivival first and foremost.

      Learning to share resources is possible in only one scenario - symbiosis. Otherwise, it is quite unlikely given the nature of life, at least as we know it.

    3. Re:Cohabitation by poor_boi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yeah, it does seem as though the authors are making the assumption that all species are going to beat the crap out of each other.

      I think if you just plopped down the Naboo and the Gungans in their pictured state of technological development, with all their gadgets and what-not, they could probably get along.

      If we're talking about co-evolution, it seems rather unlikely, unless -- like other /.ers have said -- they consumed extremely different resources and inhabited incompatible / inaccessible areas of the planet.

      Had the two races come into contact with each other somewhere earlier down the evolutionary chain, one would have competed with and severely stunded the evolutionary process of the other. That's not to say 'driven to extinction', but rather 'driven stall at a less intelligent stage of evolution'.

      But the universe is a big place, and the only life and ecosystems we know are our own. So hey. Yea. It could happen. Why not?

    4. Re:Cohabitation by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless the resources required for two life forms is remarkably different

      Like if, for example, one species lives on dry land and the other lives far below the surface of the ocean, you mean?

    5. Re:Cohabitation by spudgun · · Score: 3, Funny

      but rather 'driven stall at a less intelligent stage of evolution'

      Jarjar didn't seem too evolved !

      --
      Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.
    6. Re:Cohabitation by bckrispi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unless the resources required for two life forms is remarkably different or there is a truly symbiotic relationship...

      OBI-WAN : You and the Naboo form a symbiont circle. What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this.

      I think that clears up that question. :)

      The gungans were ocean-dwelling amphibians. The naboo were urban humans. It stands to reason that there would be a demarcation of the resources that they consumed. Their differences appeared to be totally social. The Naboo didn't trust the Gungans because they kept a standing army. And the Gungans thought the Naboo thought themselves superior.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    7. Re:Cohabitation by Presidential · · Score: 4, Funny
      The Nabooians (naboos?) are human.


      I believe the proper plural for the people of Naboo is "Nabooniks."

      This is a far cry more dignified than the residents of Tatooine, which are referred to as "Tatooweenies."

      --
      Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
    8. Re:Cohabitation by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just like Whales and Humans?

      What I find extremely odd is that the Gungans breathed atmosphere, yet lived underwater in a seemingly unnatural (i.e. gungan-made) underwater city. Are they just the evolution of a penal colony?

  2. Genocide by Shihar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look, normally I am against genocide, but if I found a pile of gungans on my planet... nuke the fuckers.

    1. Re:Genocide by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now why would you want to go and waste a perfectly good nuke on a pile of Gungans?

      Instead, send Jarjar back there with a megaphone... instant mass suicide.

      --
      http://brandonbloom.name
  3. Already been done before... by bencvt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...by the Bad Astromer. Still, I can never get enough of nitpicking sessions on Hollywood science. :-)

    1. Re:Already been done before... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't agree with all of this, though. A lot of it is too assuming of LAWKI (Life As We Know It). And some assumptions are particularly bad - for example, in relation to Bespin:

      Betts: This is the one planet I have the most trouble buying. There are, of course, examples of gas giants surrounded by moons. We have that in our own solar system. But a "band of habitable atmosphere"?

      Assuming we take that to mean temperature and oxygen without there being anything noxious or dangerous, that's certainly beyond our current expectations or measurements. Making this particularly tricky, molecular oxygen that we breathe does not occur easily in a planetary environment. Almost all the oxygen on Earth comes from life.

      Shostak: I don't know what Tibanna gas might be. Gas-giant planets seem to be swathed in ammonia, methane, and other vapors that, frankly, are neither rare nor particularly valuable. They are useful for cleaning the bathroom or cooking dinner, of course.


      Two major possibilities spring immediately to mind.

      1) Life either evolved or was seeded to the gas giant. In this case, Tibanna gas may well be a biomolecule of significance that has built up in huge quantities over the years on the gas giant. An oxygen-rich layer is quite easily explained in such a case, obviously, assuming that photosynthesis is occurring in the upper layers.

      2) The gas giant has a small amount of residual brown dwarf-activity going on in the core - Dt-Dt fusion, that is. As solar wind can ionise water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen (leaving a tenuous oxygen atmosphere around at least two gas giant moons), having your own low-scale fusion in the deep core should do plenty to split up water in the planet. How quickly it would recombine, of course, is beyond me - and you couldn't have too much energy being produced, or the colony would be fried even in the outer fringes of the atmosphere. A small, old brown dwarf could possibly pull it off (an average-sized, young dwarf will be about 1000K at 1atm), although I don't have the numbers on me.

      In either case, Tibanna gas could be He3. In the second situation, it's all the more likely: Dt-Dt fusion can directly produce He3, or can produce tritium which decays to He3.

      Personally, I have the most trouble buying Hoth. Regularly bombarded, and yet has complex animal life? Not a sign of greenery, and yet has a dense oxygen atmosphere and animals? I have trouble with that one, unless there's some sort of massive subsurface biome there.

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    2. Re:Already been done before... by defy+god · · Score: 4, Insightful
      LAWKI (Life As We Know It)

      WDPUAWTAGTWOTWPA?

      (why do people use acronyms when they are going to write out the whole phrase anyway?

      --
      hackers of the world unite!
  4. Fighters make sound in a vacuum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's all you need to know about the "science" of Star Wars.

    1. Re:Fighters make sound in a vacuum. by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Fighters make sound in a vacuum."

      Yeah, and an orchestra lead by John Williams follows everybody around. I can't believe how unrealistic incidental music makes a movie. Oh, and don't get me started on looping of dialog!! Those guys shouldn't be futzing around with the sound like that, it's not realistic! I'm a purist that demands that scifi movies be like somebody is carrying around a small camcorder around documenting everything so it's as real as possible! MOD ME UP!!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Fighters make sound in a vacuum. by murr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I think the next Star Wars movie should be Dogma 95 conformant.

    3. Re:Fighters make sound in a vacuum. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fighters make sound in a vacuum.

      Wrong. The space between stars in Star Wars is not a vacuum. There is evidently some background gas suffusing all of it, although probably not breathable.

      Evidence:
      1. Vehicles are audible even far from a planet's surface.

      2. When the Falcon landed in a "cave" inside a smallish asteroid (1 km radius), Han Solo got out and wandered around without a pressurized space-suit.

      3. Small fighter-ships in space combat manuver as if they were airplanes, slicing through a medium which imposes a maximum speed to their movement, rather than being able to accelerate indefinately (until stopped by lightspeed or fuel exhaustion).

  5. Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by TrentL · · Score: 4, Funny

    Something I never understood: in the first movie, the Death Star blows up Alderaan. Then at the end, the Death Star is moving in on Yavin. How did the Death Star get to the Yazin system? Are we to assume that it can movie around at light speed?

    1. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are we to assume that it can movie around at light speed?

      Assume nothing. It's all but spelled out in the movie. "Move the station", "hey, where'd that come from?" and all the rest.

      Practically speaking, what use is a planet-destroying weapon that can't move between planets to destroy?

    2. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by cocoamix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since it had no visible engines and no solar sails, we can only surmise that they launched it from a giant baseball-pitching machine.

    3. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by Marko+DeBeeste · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite part was when they arrive at the rebel base and somebody says "Leia, thank God you're alive. When Alderan was destroyed, we feared the worst."
      No, everythings fine, just a couple of billion people incinerated.

      --
      Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
    4. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by hehman · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, don't be silly. They built the Death Star in orbit around Alderaan.

      As for how they got to Yavin, it was conveniently the next planet out in the same solar system. Questionable planning by rebels, putting their secret base in the same system as the Death Star.

      The rest of the galaxy, of course, was kept in line by knowing that they were at risk of being blown up in a few hundred thousand years if they didn't behave.

    5. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite "among other things" is the existance of life. A couple possibilities on why we haven't seen aliens (apart from those aliens who strangely only visit drunken hillbillies). In a galaxy with probably trillions of planets, where are the aliens? There should be countless species, all with plenty of time and tech to find us.

      1) They're trying to conceal themselves from us. Of course, the questions of A) How, and B) Why immediately come up. They're furthered by the questions of "if one species is concealing itself, why are the others as well?", "how are they blocking all life-indicating radio signals/etc from us that originated hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years away?", etc. In short, it's possible, but raises questions.

      2) We're the first. Yeay for us - we'll be the evil aliens invading the planets of others to colonize or strip them of their resources (until one of them uploads a macintosh virus into our computer). Of course, the odds against this seems quite extreme.

      3) FTL is, sadly, impossible, and all other signs of life (radio, light, death stars blowing up planets, etc) are either taking too long to get to us, or are too weak to be received by the time that they reach us.

      4) Life is extremely rare, and we're freaks of the universe. May raise questions about the existance of a deity (or not).

      All of these are pretty big issues with a lot of questions associated with them. I'd love to know the answer, although all possibilities are a bit disturbing to me.

      P.S. - I don't want to post AC (and am trying first as a different IP, about to give up), but I get this:

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 19 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    6. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by Pollardito · · Score: 3, Funny
      Practically speaking, what use is a planet-destroying weapon that can't move between planets to destroy?
      ummm...to impress the ladies?
    7. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Death Star instead moved the Universe around it.
      It is obvious that there are still people who treat it as the center of the Universe.

    8. Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I covered this in a class I taught, once. The way that I chose to look at it was this - every technology (known or unknown) has built-in constraints.

      You can travel fast, in space, but at the price that you're going to be subject to more intense radiation. So, the faster you go, the more effort you need to put in to shielding (by whatever means), which means more mass, which means more energy is needed, which means a larger percentage of the vehicle is going to need to hold engines and fuel. Which means that if you plan on having enough oxygen and supplies to go round, you're going to have less range.

      This means that, for any given technology, speed is going to be pitted against range. With chemical rockets and lead shielding, the limits are going to be fairly low, as the effectiveness of the rockets isn't great but the mass of the shields is. With antimatter and some sort of shielding based on QM exclusion, your limits are much higher, but they'll still be there.

      You can travel slowly, not get so much radiation, but would need a much larger vessel to do so. In order to maintain the integrity of anything large enough, against little things such as gravity wells or even the inertia when you want to make a turn at the lights, you need more infrastructure, which means more maintenance, which means more of your resources are spent on keeping together than going anywhere.

      Now, we've got a minimum constraint - go too slowly, and you won't get there at all. Again, more advanced technology will make for better materials and all that, so this is a moving target, but they'll still have a lower limit.

      A similar problem is faced with wormholes, assuming they can be made navigable. You need exotic matter of equal or greater mass than the vehicle planning on travelling. The more massive the vessel, the more exotic matter you need. Unless you're travelling from a fixed station (a-la the book version of "Contact"). you've got to lug around a generator capable of sustaining enough exotic matter that the wormhole doesn't spontaneously collapse along its entire length. And exotic matter doesn't last long - about 10^-30 seconds - so you need to be able to generate an awful lot of it, for long enough to do the travelling.

      My proposition, then, was that any given type of technology MIGHT be able to travel between the stars, but that there would be upper and lower limits on how far or how fast. Below some level of achievement in a given technology, the bounds cannot be satisfied - the minimum would be greater than the maximum, so there is no value that will work.

      However, there's an upper limit to what any technology can do, too. Antimatter can't supply more energy than the mass-equivalent posesses, no matter how good the conversion, for example. So, some technologies may NEVER be good enough to be used.

      My proposition to the class was a simple one. Working from the idea of limits, is it possible to prove that a technology must (or, indeed, cannot, through a non-existance proof) exist that can satisfy all of the constraints?

      In other words, is it possible to show that no technology - even technologies we know nothing about - could ever be sufficient to travel between the stars? Or is it possible to imagine such a technology, and perhaps even have some idea as to what properties that technology would need to have to make such travel possible?

      The class seemed divided on this, but the answer seemed to be that it was unlikely that such travel was possible. The problem with the limits seemed to be unsolvable, although we couldn't find any obvious way of proving that by reasoning alone.

      I suspect the reason aliens AREN'T here (or, if they are, at least not common) is that the difficulties are great enough as to put it beyond the reaches of any but the most advanced, assuming even they can. And by being so difficult, there would be really no interest in visiting a star u

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. The sad part is by MikeDawg · · Score: 3, Funny

    The sad part of this is, that my dad and I once had this conversation a couple of years back (related to the original 3 Star Wars). He always kept nit-picking at them, explaining to me that Luke should have two shadows (if I remember correctly Tattooine had 2 suns, I could be wrong). I guess thats what I get for having a physics teacher for a father.

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

    1. Re:The sad part is by terrymr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tatooine is a town in Tunisia (north africa) near the sahara desert, It's pretty dry and hot there.

      Luke skywalkers cave house is an example of the kind of homes you find in southern Tunisia, I forget the name of the town.

      Those Jedi robes are worn by a lot of people because of the cold nights in the area.

      Lucas recycled most of this into the movie, because it was already there and therefore cheap.

    2. Re:The sad part is by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was suspect of your claims (sounds too much like an urban legend), but a quick Google search confirms this.

      Here's a great slideshow: http://ianandwendy.com/OtherTrips/Tunisia/Tatooine /slideshow.htm
      (Pops up in a new window). Note the Jedi robe in the second to last photo. Hopefully we don't melt poor Ian and Wendy's webserver.

  7. wtfhatta? by Amouth · · Score: 5, Funny

    did i miss something.. i ... i though starwars was about making money..

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  8. Re:ha ha, yeah right by king-manic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can't even get on with others that have diffent skin and cultures than us, let alone genes...
    Lets say the republic is 10,000 years old (as is alluded to in the movies). Thats mean they've had 10,000 years to turn Us and them to just Us. Culture shares a large part in that, The europeans went from backward thridworld area continually warring with itself to a fairly unified entity in less then 1000 years. It's not hard to imagine, given 10,000 years the various races of the republic would start identifying themselves as a hetrogenous whole rather then a group of distinct peoples.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  9. The scientific breakthrough of our times by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The secret's out, people. Now everyone knows that Star Wars is not actually "hard" science fiction!

    At least they didn't do a study or anything.

  10. it isn't so much the science as the plot holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Obi and Qui Gon find Anakin infested with force bacteria. Qui Gon says he's make a good Jedi. Yoda says hell no he's to freaking old. The kid is what? four.
    Well, spoiler coming, turns out that wasn't the best idea. As Yoda predicted he went to the dark, a bunch Jedis got it in scenes reminiscent of the original Godfather.
    Somehow Obi makes it. Hooks up with Luke eighteen years later and says, basically, screw it four years old may be too old to be a Jedi but eighteen is no problem. No freakin way a half assed jedi could get turned to the dark side and make things even efffin worse. I'll train Luke.

    Fake science I can live with, clear jedi incompetence is a bit harder.

  11. Technological developement by king-manic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Human civilization is approx. 4000 years old. In that time we have pretty much closed the technology gap of the vairous tribes of humanity. We can all forge metal, we can all make things move via petroleum based products, we can kill each other with projectiles ect...

    In 10,000 the technology gap of a community of star systems that communicate with each other woudl also close. So it's not such a huge issue. Technology doesn't have to spread directly, even the rumor of something being possible can send other cultures into a frenzy to find out how. The stories marco polo brought back from china were more useful then the inventions and products he brought back. It sent europe into a frenzy into trying to mimic these items.

    In the proccess of trying to mimic these products they derived their own innovations and advanced further. Over 10,000 this would equilize the technologies of the various intelligent life forms. As for the robots, perhaps innovation in robot designed leveled off long ago and even 100 year old droid are useful. Or AI requires some rare material that is now in short supply so even old droids must be maintained.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  12. But it already happend! by espergreen · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a galaxy far, far away a long time ago.

    You can't argue with history. noobs

  13. C3PO by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the future there will be homosexual robots

    1. Re:C3PO by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the future there will be homosexual robots

      Not that there's anything wrong with that.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:C3PO by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, in the past.

  14. Re:Better option by jspoon · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's still iffy. Even a neutron bomb will create a lot of heat and spread around a fair amount of un fissioned material. There's an obvious clean solution if you think about it. If you can go into space, just haul in some appropriately sized asteroids to drop on them, a la The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

  15. Wait a second! by lheal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they trying to imply that Star Wars wasn't real?

    I suppose they didn't really have light sabers, either?

    What next, Darth Vader's voice was dubbed?

    I'd better lie down a while.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  16. Cool article, but a few issues. by illtron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They make a few good points, but they're missing some of the Star Wars facts. A few that come to mind:

    1. Yoda knew Luke was coming. It wasn't coincidence that he lost control of his fighter and landed in Yoda's back yard. That was the Force. They mention that it might be the case, but aren't sure. Well, it is.

    2. There's very little or no liquid water on Tatooine, which they say. But they neglect the fact that this is obvious. Uncle Owen runs a moisture farm, which collects water vapor through a series of vaporators spread across the desert. They grow crops underground in tunnels.

    3. Chemists correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the molecular weight determine where oxygen might occur in an atmosphere? If Tibanna, a gas used in heavy blasters in the Star Wars galaxy, weighs more than oxygen, isn't it very possible that there would be oxygen above it? Maybe it's something that's common in the upper atmosphere (we see mining pods floating around), but is breathable in its natural form, sort of like how nitrogen makes up a good part of our breathable atmosphere?

    4. They totally copped out on Coruscant. They worry too much about the location. I'd figure that all this intense development on Coruscant might have started long before anybody decided it would be the seat of galactic government. Sure they risk a lot by being there, but you don't want to make the trash on the other side of the outer rim fly all the way across the galaxy, do you? Location, location, location!

    5. I don't think Hoth is right in the asteroid field. The Falcon had to fly for a while before they got to it, and eventually (it seems conceivable that the trip took weeks) made it to Bespin. Even at sublight speeds, space vessels in the Star Wars galaxy have got to be pretty fast. All kinds of junk from space makes its way to Earth's atmosphere every day, and it hasn't stopped us from developing civilization. I don't see why the occasional small meteorite would stop animals from living on Hoth.

    It seems that for a couple of scientific types, those guys didn't really ask enough of the right questions. That's all I've got.

    --
    Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
  17. Cognitive gaps are more signficant by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree with king-manic that technological gulfs, while huge, could be reduced significantly through interstellar trade. What is more signficant -- and I never see mentioned in these types of discussions -- are the huge gulfs in intelligence and mental abilities. There are going to be species out there that are vastly more intelligent or have incredible memories. In the movies and TV shows, all aliens have pretty much the same brainpower. That's just unrealistic.

    Consider the following scenario: a race of technologically advanced reptiles are being attacked by intelligent insects from another world. The insects are more intelligent than the reptiles and have the same level of technological development. The reptiles are fucked unless they can get some help. They approach a world called Earth that contains intelligent bipedial mammals named humans. These mammals show promise but are relatively young and do not have sophisticated technology. They also are highly unpredictable and warlike. Knowing the risks, the reptiles make an offer: if the humans agree to enter the war by serving as tactical officers onboard their warships, the reptiles will provide the humans with advances in medicine, communications, power generation, and warp drive. Humans, eager for a chance to obtain technologies necessary to solve problems on their planet, leap at the chance. The highly-logical insects are used to the methodical, logical battleplans of the reptiles and are baffled by the unconventional tactics of the humans. They are quickly and easily defeated. Fearing they have created a monster, the reptiles quickly sever ties with the humans but not before they have transfered a signficant amount of technological know-how. Within a few decades, humans become a threat to the very reptiles who kick-started their space exploration.

    Technology gaps are easily solved. Huge gaps in cognitive function are what make long-duration star wars unlikely.

    GMD

  18. Finally! by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Funny

    I admit it: i was waiting for a Star Wars story so i could finally post this link (and yes, it is obligatory). That guy's a genious.

  19. Oh man, this is just dumb! by mbrother · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As much as the next scientist, I like to find ways to conduct outreach and bring science to the public. But I have my limits, and Star Wars is about as far from science as you can get. There are plenty of other, better vehicles. We may as well do the "science" of Sex and the City or the "science" of American Idol. Really.

    Lucas and/or some non-scientific Hollywood writer types made some shit up that they thought would fly. It's just dumb for scientists to sit around and come up with justifications for it after the fact when so much of it is so dumb to start with. It doesn't serve the cause of education.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  20. The gungan intifada... by dominion · · Score: 4, Funny


    After the last star wars movie, my friends and I spent twenty minutes outside of the theater arguing whether Naboo was an apartheid state.

    The only conclusion we came to is that we're total geeks, and we needed to stop before anybody noticed.

  21. Star Wars is Philosophy & Star Trek is Tech by reporter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Star Trek is definitely a space saga that was created to conform as closely as possible to foreseeable technologies. A few decades ago, I read an article about how Gene Roddenberry would consult scientists to probe into the technologies of the future. Then, he adjusted the stories of Star Trek to conform as closely as possible.

    Heck, the next-to-last episode of "Star Trek: Enterprise" actually had a zoomed-in camera shot of a Carl Sagan memorial on mars.

    By contrast, the gem of "Stars Wars" is not the technology but, rather, is the philosophy: the battle between good and evil. One of the themes of that battle is that good will triumph if you stick to your ideals. In the original trilogy, the Force was available to all, and Obi Wan Kenobi even offered to teach the Force to Han Solo, but the swashbuckler was too arrogant to accept the offer.

    Notice how "Star Wars" I and II rather sucked after Lucas tried to inject all that technology into the movies. First and foremost is that concept of midichlorians (which turned the notion of Jedi into some sort of snobbish club into which you are born -- if you inherit midichlorians in your blood). Then, Lucas packs every scene with speedsters (air-borne cars), special effects, etc. All that technology just smothered what little philosophy was there.

    300 years from now, the original "Star Wars" trilogy will still be watched by our descendents. The philosophy of "Star Wars" has made it timeless.

    I cannot say the same for "Star Trek" or the "Star Wars" prequels.

  22. Re:Absurd plot holes by sg3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > you've got to figure that with Vader's uberpowers, he'd have
    > figured out Leia was his daughter when he captured her

    You might as well argue that Yoda, hanging out in Papatine's office in Episode II, should have been able to notice that Palpatine was the Sith Lord. As Mace and Yoda said in Episode II, the Jedi were blind to the Dark Side. Maybe the deal is the dark side and the light side (being "opposite" sides of the Force) cannot see the other without knowing for sure where they should look, and one cannot sense someone with the Force until one has actually met the person.

    That would explain why the Jedi would have to have a physical blood test to search for Force-sensitive individuals (Episode I). But once they know who that individual is, they can find them easily (e.g., Yoda finding Obi-Wan and Anakin in Episode II, foreseeing they were in danger from Dooku; Palpatine finding Vader in Episode III foreseeing he was in danger from Obi-Wan; Vader sensing Obi-Wan in Episode IV, etc).

    In Episode VI, Vader says that Luke is on the moon of Endor, while Palpatine says that he didn't sense it -- and he questions Vader's "sight". Vader knew that Luke was his son and he had met him before (in Episode V). Vader couldn't "call to" Luke in Episode V until he actually met him; that's why he had to torture Leia, Han, and Chewbacca in Episode V to draw Luke to him.

    So until Vader knew that Leia was his daughter (learning this from Luke in Episode VI), he wouldn't have known about it even with her standing right in front of him.

    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.