Avatar: what a load of horse crap
Mensanator
Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
is the science behind that?
Instead of science, we get a load of New Age claptrap about
all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
magically between bodies.
If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a John Travlota
Scientology film.
Christ, no ray-guns even.
eric gisse
Man, I can't wait to see your reaction to sinking ice in GI JOE.
Mensanator
I already crossed that off my list.
mike3
Why do you demand that fictional things be scientific and "real world"
like? It's fiction! It doesn't have to be like the real world! That's
why it's called "fiction"... So-called "science" fiction is often
not scientific. More emphasis on the "fiction" part, instead. If you
don't like that, and want something closer to "science" science
fiction then you won't find a whole lot of it in Hollywood.
Mensanator
I draw the line at rocks that float.
tg
jonnie
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b7384d4e-e7e1-4f9f...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Marines ?? with guns ??? and conventional 1940's weapons??
NO NUKES ???
Stupid unimaginative Hollywood.
Cowboy and injun movie.
and the final robot fight with knives ?????
special effects were fantastic, plot was crummy.
Uncle Al
>
> Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
> There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
Uobtainium is a mineral, an ambient temperature superconductor. In
the movie it looked like a lump of polycrystalline silicon.
> Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
> is the science behind that?
Ambient temp supercon at a planet's strong magnetic pole.
> Instead of science, we get a load of New Age claptrap about
> all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
> magically between bodies.
No worse than going robotic after the Singularity.
> If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a John Travlota
> Scientology film.
Different nonsense - oysters, sand grains, souls plunged into erupting
volcanoes. Like the bible, but with a bigger entry fee and periodic
maintenance levies.
> Christ, no ray-guns even.
Shrouded fans good. Shrouded fans plus debris bad.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B3FEE10...@hate.spam.net...
<snip crap>
> Uobtainium is a mineral, an ambient temperature superconductor. In
> the movie it looked like a lump of polycrystalline silicon.
"uNobtainium appears nowhere in the movie, nor could it.
idiot
Mensanator
Big fucking difference between floating in water
and floating in air.
Hey, if you want to write a story about how Mars
has anti-gravity wood that allows you to cruise
the waves of inter-planetary aether and call it
Space: 1899, fine. I'll go along with it as long
as your up front about it.
>
> -tg
a s
others want to be entertained by impossible sci-fi (e.g. Star Wars).
I haven't seen Avatar, but its impossible sci-fi has made a lot of
people I know very happy - including engineers and physicists. For
those into plausible sci-fi, and who are studied much in physics, you
should agree with me that Gene Roddenberry was a genius and perhaps if
he were still around and produced or wrote Avatar, you'd be much
happier. Since he's regrettably deceased, we have to make due with
producers with overactive imaginations.
Mensanator
> Mensanator wrote:
>
> > Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> > Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
> > There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> > No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>
> Uobtainium is a mineral, an ambient temperature superconductor. In
> the movie it looked like a lump of polycrystalline silicon.
>
> > Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
> > is the science behind that?
>
> Ambient temp supercon at a planet's strong magnetic pole.
Is that why the ones not tethered to the ground by
vines didn't float away? Even the tethered ones
would have had to hold still for the vines to grow.
Have you thought about becoming a screenwriter?
Looks like there would be no competition.
>
> > Instead of science, we get a load of New Age claptrap about
> > all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
> > magically between bodies.
>
> No worse than going robotic after the Singularity.
>
> > If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a John Travlota
> > Scientology film.
>
> Different nonsense - oysters, sand grains, souls plunged into erupting
> volcanoes. Like the bible, but with a bigger entry fee and periodic
> maintenance levies.
>
> > Christ, no ray-guns even.
>
> Shrouded fans good. Shrouded fans plus debris bad.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
Mike Jr
> Mensanator wrote:
>
> > Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> > Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
> > There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> > No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>
> the movie it looked like a lump of polycrystalline silicon.
>
> > Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
> > is the science behind that?
>
> Ambient temp supercon at a planet's strong magnetic pole.
I agree with Al. "An ambient temperature superconductor" is at least
as plausible as any other science fiction movie artifact that I can
think of.
More troublesome to me is that the movie built a paper villain that
nobody could like and then proceeded to knock it down. Yawn.
[snip]
tg
Be more specific in the future. Not everyone rushed to see the latest
dumb movie like you did.
-tg
Mensanator
> "Mensanator" <mensana...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we're going to accept magic, maybe we could do
someting along the lines of:
"Harry Potter and the Princess of Mars"
Think of it: all the Star Trek characters replaced by
wizards, each with his own speciality. One to cast a
spell to hurl the ship across space. Another (former
Quiddich champion) to control the massed broomsticks
used for impulse power. Another with a big crystal ball
to act as navigator. The captain would have to be a
? (whatever that word was that allows him to speak to
snakes) as I'm sure that ability would also allow the
captain to speak alien languages.
Of course, we still need the guys in the red shirts to
act as expendables. They can be muggles.
I think I may be onto something. Anybody know JK's
e-mail address?
Bart Goddard
cce1f9...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> "Harry Potter and the Princess of Mars"
>
Tars Tarkus would SOOoooo kick Harry's ass.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Androcles
"a s" <astewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9240fa1b-4469-4d1e...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I saw but didn't watch Star Trek, it was totally implausible. It may have
been Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke, I've long forgotten who, but
someone once wrote that sci-fi was only ordinary fiction about human
beings with a technological innovation added. Asimov wrote detective
stories with a robot breaking his laws, Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh
Mistress" was remake of the American War of Independence, and
so on. "Beam me up, Scottie", "photon torpedoes" and "warp drive"
are as implausible as any fiction can be. Dr. Who's "Tardis" had
a greater internal volume than the box containing it. He was only a
remake of the Lone Ranger anyway, with the black hats played by
robots. Exterminate, exterminate... you'd only have to kick them
over to stop them dead. Your adoration of Roddenberry only shows
your familiarity with your youthful zest, now lost in the past.
He had slowpoke rays for his photon torpedoes (reborn ray guns) so
that they could be dodged. It's a yarn, nothing more, and as silly as
any tale retold today. Don't tell me that is "plausible". It only seems
that way to you because you swallowed it hook, line and sinker when
you were young. Look at it objectively.
Wayne McDermott
been dead a long time and the "noble savage" garbage should have died
with him. Being expected to cheer for a traitor just pissed me off. For
all that, though, it was a visual and technical extravaganza and worth
the price of admission.
Mike Jr
Dittos.
--Mike Jr.
rossum
<mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>Big fucking difference between floating in water
>and floating in air.
Not even original either, Jonathan Swift had airborne rocks in
Gulliver's Travels - Laputa.
rossum
Marshall
>
> I saw but didn't watch Star Trek, it was totally implausible.
> "Beam me up, Scottie", "photon torpedoes" and "warp drive"
> are as implausible as any fiction can be.
This is certainly true, but:
> Your adoration of Roddenberry only shows
> your familiarity with your youthful zest, now lost in the past.
Don't be so quick to dis Roddenberry. Yes, most of the
"science" in Trek was quite wonky, but consider that
the heroes of the show were largely scientists and
engineers. He may have gotten the details wrong, but
he got the engineer's values right. And considering that
what he was making was a TV show and not textbooks,
that's a real success. Consider how very few others
have done as well.
Truly it is written:
Young Star Trek fans grow up to be scientists and
engineers, wanting to work for NASA or do research
or build high tech. Young Star Wars fans grow up
to be old Star Wars fans.
Marshall
Marshall
> Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
I give him a little credit: there was no gravity on the spaceships,
the natives' native language wasn't English, and the atmosphere
of the planet wasn't breathable. Those are details that are
almost always done wrong.
> Instead of science, we get a load of New Age claptrap about
> all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
> magically between bodies.
That part was shit.
Marshall
Darwin123
> There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>
> Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
> is the science behind that?
isn't anything more scientific than a "vortex." It's right up there
with "space warp" and "wormhole!"
If you looked closely, there was a wormholes in some of the
mountains leading right back to Star Gate-I. Not the front of the worm
hole, often seen in the program. The back of the Star Gate, the part
of the Star Gate you never see, leads right to the vertex.
This area of space was made that way by Q. He made the vertex to
prevent the Doctor from getting there. If the Doctor had reached the
Navii, he would have solved all their problems with a wave from his
Sonic Screwdriver.
There are dozens of these new-age magical-concepts "floating
around" in just about all space fantasies. Actually, most space
fantasies violate scientific principles even more.
I think the directors of Avatar gave us sufficient warning about
what was to come when they named their expensive ore "Unobtainium."
You should have braced yourself right then for the BS that coming. If
you didn't walk out at the stage, it was your own fault!
Uncle Al
>
> On Jan 2, 7:08 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Mensanator wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
> >
> > > Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
> > > There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> > > No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
> >
> > Uobtainium is a mineral, an ambient temperature superconductor. In
> > the movie it looked like a lump of polycrystalline silicon.
> >
> > > Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
> > > is the science behind that?
> >
> > Ambient temp supercon at a planet's strong magnetic pole.
>
> Is that why the ones not tethered to the ground by
> vines didn't float away? Even the tethered ones
> would have had to hold still for the vines to grow.
>
> Have you thought about becoming a screenwriter?
>
> Looks like there would be no competition.
Pandora becomes Pacoima, the whole movie sung to "Yellow Rose of
Texas,"
CUPIDITY
by Uncle Al
Cupid was arrested
for doing something rad.
He aimed his arrows at a pig,
Socialism's bad.
Abridging right's forbidden,
you know it in your soul.
Arnie signed 962
and freedom's all been stole.
Cupid had it coming,
above and from below;
MQ-9s with Hellfires,
some armor-piercing blow.
Chain guns and hot shrap'nel,
.50 cal delight.
They juked him in the morning,
and throughout all the night.
They fired until their barrels glowed,
magazines ran dry.
They fired with fingers blistered,
but Cupid would not die.
Some may call it justice,
others massacree.
People shiver in their cells:
Homeland Severity.
If you love your country,
and if you love your wife;
If you love your property,
and if you love your life:
Get yourself a long arm,
and get yourself its due.
Share the love that matters,
before they cupid you.
Coming soon! "Ode to a Mossberg 590" sung to "The Wreck of the Edmund
Fitzgerald."
--
Uncle Al
Darwin123
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:20:26 -0800 (PST), Mensanator
>
> Gulliver's Travels - Laputa.
>
> rossum
You mean Gulliver's Travels wasn't based on hard scientific
fact?
Tell that to the giant people who occupy Alaska! Ask Palin!
gudi
> Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> is the science behind that?
In the Indian epic story of Ramayana,floating stones formed a bridge
between India and a neighboring country to carry across an invading
monkey army. They had Ram's name written on them with a divine Bhakthi
(devotion) creating a force believed to transcend science.
Jens Stuckelberger
And this rests the OP's case.
Androcles
"Marshall" <marshal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b73b7f0-3041-4e86...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
That part was shit.
Marshall
============================================
Programs can be transferred magically between computers. What's
shit about wireless networking? It's only magic if you don't understand
software is the soul of the machine.
Androcles
Truly it is written:
Marshall
============================================
Don't be so quick to dis Newton.
Yes, most of the "science" in Einstein's Relativity is completely
wonky, but consider that the fans of the show are largely morons.
Newton may have gotten the details right, but he got the engineer's
values right too. And considering that what he was making was a
physical science and not home movies, that's a real success.
Consider how very few others have done as well.
Don't be so quick to dis Beethoven or Brahms.
Young Elvis fans grow up to be housewives and cr�che operators,
wanting to work for money or do lactate research or build low
tech rocking cribs. Young Elvis Presley fans grow up to be old Elvis
Presley grannies and never listen to a symphony in their life.
Can I dis Michael Jackson? The punk doesn't belong to my era
and a 50-year-old poof paedophile acting like a teenager doesn't
do a thing for me.
Mensanator
> On Jan 2, 1:01 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> I give him a little credit: there was no gravity on the spaceships,
> the natives' native language wasn't English, and the atmosphere
> of the planet wasn't breathable. Those are details that are
> almost always done wrong.
One detail that was missed is that with those face-hugger
respirators, facial hair would be forbidden. Yet I saw more
beards than at a Kabul block-party.
Rick Decker
> On Jan 2, 4:01 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>> There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
>> No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>>
> I think the directors of Avatar gave us sufficient warning about
> what was to come when they named their expensive ore "Unobtainium."
> You should have braced yourself right then for the BS that coming. If
> you didn't walk out at the stage, it was your own fault!
I took "unobtanium" to be an engineering slang term, rather
than the proper name for whatever-it-was. After all, it's
a more or less common name today for some unlikely substance
like, say, "cavorite". That disturbed me far less than the
deplorable writing of the movie.
Regards,
Rick
Marshall
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Don't be so quick to dis Roddenberry. Yes, most of the
> > "science" in Trek was quite wonky, but consider that
> > the heroes of the show were largely scientists and
> > engineers. He may have gotten the details wrong, but
> > he got the engineer's values right. And considering that
> > what he was making was a TV show and not textbooks,
> > that's a real success. Consider how very few others
> > have done as well.
>
> Yes, most of the "science" in Einstein's Relativity is completely
> wonky, but consider that the fans of the show are largely morons.
> Newton may have gotten the details right, but he got the engineer's
> values right too. And considering that what he was making was a
> physical science and not home movies, that's a real success.
> Consider how very few others have done as well.
>
> Don't be so quick to dis Beethoven or Brahms.
> wanting to work for money or do lactate research or build low
> tech rocking cribs. Young Elvis Presley fans grow up to be old Elvis
> Presley grannies and never listen to a symphony in their life.
Wow, when you modified-quote me back at myself like
that, it really makes me realize that if I had written
something totally different than what I did write,
it would have been complete nonsense.
Eye-opening stuff, to be sure.
Marshall
Androcles
On Jan 3, 4:00 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Don't be so quick to dis Roddenberry. Yes, most of the
> > "science" in Trek was quite wonky, but consider that
> > the heroes of the show were largely scientists and
> > engineers. He may have gotten the details wrong, but
> > he got the engineer's values right. And considering that
> > what he was making was a TV show and not textbooks,
> > that's a real success. Consider how very few others
> > have done as well.
>
> Don't be so quick to dis Newton.
> Yes, most of the "science" in Einstein's Relativity is completely
> wonky, but consider that the fans of the show are largely morons.
> Newton may have gotten the details right, but he got the engineer's
> values right too. And considering that what he was making was a
> physical science and not home movies, that's a real success.
> Consider how very few others have done as well.
>
> Don't be so quick to dis Beethoven or Brahms.
> wanting to work for money or do lactate research or build low
> tech rocking cribs. Young Elvis Presley fans grow up to be old Elvis
> Presley grannies and never listen to a symphony in their life.
Wow, when you modified-quote me back at myself like
that, it really makes me realize that if I had written
something totally different than what I did write,
it would have been complete nonsense.
Eye-opening stuff, to be sure.
Marshall
=====================
But I didn't disrespect Roddenberry.
He produced the amusement he set out to do and made his money,
that is a legitimate pursuit and the business of entertainment. It's
been that way since wandering minstrels and bards have roamed
the land sing for their supper. Nowadays they can roam the world.
Football and soccer players are no different, they knock a ball about
and children admire their talent, but in the end it is just as game.
Talented engineers design TVs and they are used primarily to
entertain. Nobody is really interested in watching a panel of lights
or listening to a paper cone inside a magnet, it is the information
it carries that amuses or informs. The glory goes to the entertainer;
the mathematicians, scientists and engineers that make the magic
possible are unheard of except by their own kind, and fiction is
what the people want.
iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui
dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas
tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses.
(Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81)
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have
abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out
military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains
itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
Marshall
> "Marshall" <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have no problem with the idea of mind-transfer, although
there are quite a number of practical difficulties that must
be overcome before we can do it. But I didn't see "wireless
networking" in the movie; I saw an evolutionary system
that had somehow come up with an information bus
that all animals and even *plants* shared. How's that
again? What was the evolutionary advantage to the
flying critters to be mind-controlled by the Na'vi?
What was the evolutionary advantage to the plant life
to maintain all those data interconnects that would
more than offset the cost of maintaining them? Or
was it rather just that the whole thing was a bogus
"noble savage" Gaia mother precious snowflake
ideological throwback?
Marshall
Androcles
=====================================
I've not seen the movie, just clips of it on the news.
That was enough reason for me not to see it, it would
fail to entertain me. My comments were related to those
that consider it less plausible than Star Trek and its tribbles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3kHy4fqtpU
Mensanator
Is that what they call themselves? They think they have
trouble now with people wanting their rocks, think of
the stampede when people find out they have the secret
of eternal life. Not very wise of them to let that secret
out.
Darwin123
about this are staying on the planet. The soldiers leaving don't know
that the trees can store human memory.
Also, this isn't complete immortality. The ones staying are in
Avatars. Their consciousness is moved by the trees into Avatars. The
Na'vi themselves don't have Avatars. Their memories are sometimes
uploaded by the trees, but I don't know how much of their
individuality is preserved this way. Death is still death on this
world, there is an illusion of an afterlife.
Uploading memories from the animals is a fitness advantage only
to the trees. The memories can't reproduce, but the trees can. The
trees can use the memories to protect themselves. More on that later.
>
> > What was the evolutionary advantage to the plant life
> > to maintain all those data interconnects that would
> > more than offset the cost of maintaining them?
correct. However, I will try to make a model where this makes sense.
Let us assume that the competition that drives evolution on this
planet is not between animals, but between plants. Maybe the trees and
grass are breeding the animals for their own benefit.
I do notice that the animals were preying on each other. Even the
Na'vi were hunters. Apparently, animals can kill each other for food.
I don't see how an animal ambushed can leave its consciousness to the
trees. So competition and death are not absent from this world.
Although the animals are directed against hurting the plants, but not
other animals.
The interconnects were obviously an advantage to the plants. The
Na'vi and the animals were protecting the trees. The trees weren't
doing that much to protect the animals.
Maybe the trees are somehow forcing the animals to grow these data
interconnects. The trees are producing hormones and neurotoxins that
influence the embryology of the animals. Maybe even some addictive
substances that bind the animals and people to the trees.
How come all the animals had interconnects? One would think that
some animals would evolve to bypass the manipulation from the plants.
Maybe being tamed doesn't directly benefit the flying animals.
However, maybe the hunter-flier pair benefits some of the plants in
the area. Maybe the plants are fighting each other, but the animals
have some level of cooperation.
This is an obvious case of group selection. On our world, natural
selection occurs at different levels. There is gene level selection,
individual level selection, kin selection, etc. They are all
manifestations of gene selection. However, the most obvious form of
selection is on the scale of individuals.
Maybe on their world, group selection is the most obvious form of
selection.
The forests are groups that fight each other. The global
consciousness is just a temporary federation of plants. What you see
as peace is really just rules of war. It wasn't that the humans were
really more warlike than the Na'vi, they just broke the rules of war.
If they tried kill the Na'vi while taking over the care of the plants,
the plants would let them.
Maybe the plants compete with each other. Forest #1 fights forest
#2 for space. Each one needs animals to graze on the other. Think of
the grazing animals as the foot soldiers of forest #1, and the
predators as the support groups. So the animals and plants of each
forest are really fighting against each other. The "global
consciousness" would experience this as inner conflict. However, what
is really happening is the separate ecommunities are fighting.
Evidence for this? The Na'vi consider themselves a warrior race.
If their world was so peaceful, how could they become warriors? They
are divided into different peoples.
My hypothesis deconstructs the noble savage message. I am
supposing that to develop that type of cooperation, there has to be a
lot of natural conflict in the world. I believe cooperation and mercy
only come about from symmetrical warfare. If the Na'vi are so
understanding, its only because the less understanding Na'vi were
killed off in previous generations. I don't think a society like
theirs could develop except after years of conflict.
I actually didn't mind most of the anticolonial preaching. What I
thought a little much is the end. The Na'vi accepted the human
surrender and let the soldiers go home peacefully. On earth, with a
few notable exceptions, the aboriginal peoples were cruel and savage
to the European invaders.
The soldiers in Avatar were lucky the Na'vi weren't like the
Apaches. However, the Pueblo peoples after the Sante Fe rebellion were
sort of forgiving. However, the Pueblo people weren't hunter
gatherers.
> > was it rather just that the whole thing was a bogus
> > "noble savage" Gaia mother precious snowflake
> > ideological throwback?
it was very good at being propaganda. It was highly emotional.
I think the Gaea theory isn't real science. I don't think one can
blame the European colonialists for everything. I do think our
civilization can do better. I do think there are ecological threats
that must be addressed. If Gaea was real, we wouldn't have anything to
worry about.
as
>
> - Show quoted text -
how do we know how old the trees are? maybe in their age and wisdom
they can see the wisdom of preserving the balance of the global mind
while deaming less developed minds to suffer their own made fate.
Hauke Reddmann
of Smurfette and not be *able* to think. You didn't?
Pervert :-)
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8 fc3...@uni-hamburg.de
Oh must you tell me all your secrets when it's hard enough
to love you knowing nothing?
Darwin123
> You were supposed to get a hardon at the first sight
> of Smurfette and not be *able* to think. You didn't?
> Pervert :-)
Darwin123
> "Mensanator" <mensana...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b7384d4e-e7e1-4f9f...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> > No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>
> > is the science behind that?
>
> > all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
> > magically between bodies.
>
> > Scientology film.
>
> > Christ, no ray-guns even.
>
Projectile weapons are pretty robust. I doubt that ray guns will
ever replace bullets. All through the twentieth century, nothing
really replaced the full automatic.
I always had difficulty with the Star Wars series. Here we are, in
a galaxy that has ray guns and some type of cannon. Some of the
soldiers have telekinetic powers.
Yet, the soldiers are fighting with SWORDS! Some of the gangsters
use BATTLE AXES!
There was enough BS in a single half hour of any Star Wars movie
to match the entire Avatar movie. You can't complain about the
technical mistakes in Avatar without complaining about Star Wars.
Furthermore, the New Age magic in Star Wars has prone. Lifting
things by meditation.
Avatar did not have the same type of psychic powers. There was no
mind-reading that occurred at a distance. The mind reading was through
the roots of trees. Not precisely scientific. However, communication
through biological contacts didn't offend me quite as much. There was
no telekinesis.
> NO NUKES ???
I don't think they would use nukes in real life. There is too much
chance of damaging the resources they are trying to capture. And they
specifically stated that the long range technology didn't work in the
vertex.
>
> and the final robot fight with knives ?????
The human soldier ran out of bullets. His robot had a knife for
cutting through jungle.
I don't consider this a mistake. There is historic precedent for
this. Bayonets are placed on rifles precisely for this reason.
Commandeers know that at some point, bullets run out. Also, the blade
of a bayonet is useful for probing through vegetation. When one is
fighting in a jungle, one doesn't want to have to shoot every bush to
see what is there.
It is different from carrying around swords. Swords wouldn't be
very useful in a jungle environment. The chances of cutting off your
own arm would immense. You could easily split your own head using a
laser sword. I would like to see a Star Wars movie where the the Darth
Vader villain got that way by cutting off his own facial features.
There was a really serious inconsistency that you skipped,
however. Did you notice this?
Long range telemetry doesn't work in the vertex. This I was
willing to accept. Then how did the Avatars work in the vertex? If the
soldiers couldn't control robots remotely in the vertex, they
shouldn't have been able to control the Avatars in the vertex.
>
> special effects were fantastic, plot was crummy.
Although Avatar was antitechnology, it was procomputer. Those
biological connects had a very close resemblance to electronic
interconnects. I got the distinct impression that computers were
natural, while robots were not.
Even as environmental propaganda, Avatar didn't match "Silent
Running."
Why were those Na'vi so nice, anyway? That was something I
didn't understand. Or maybe I do. I was supposed to get a hard on for
some nice tail.
Darwin123
> Some go to see scientifically plausible sci-fi (e.g. Star Trek)
<LOL>
Star Trek (all of them) was as scientifically implausible as
Avatar. Easily.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate and Avatar are fantasies. Now and
forever!
Darwin123
It was a pontoon bridge.
The "stones" floated in water. Ram's name was written on them.
Stones don't generally take ink or paint well. Obviously, the "stones"
were wood.
Similarly, the floating mountains in Avatar were obviously made of
unobtainium, a room temperature superconductor. The magnetic field of
the planet repelled the superconductor, making the mountains float in
air.
Whatever.
master1729
> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 3:37 pm, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 2, 2:01 pm, Mensanator
> <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hey, where's the science in this alleged
> "science fiction" epic?
> >
> > > > Chemists have figured out all the elements a
> long time ago.
> > > > There are no "magic" elements waiting to be
> discovered.
> > > > No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
> >
> > > > Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break.
> What, pray tell,
> > > > is the science behind that?
> >
> > > > Instead of science, we get a load of New Age
> claptrap about
> > > > all souls being connected together, that souls
> can be transferred
> > > > magically between bodies.
> >
> > > > If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a
> John Travlota
> > > > Scientology film.
> >
> > > > Christ, no ray-guns even.
> >
> scientific and "real world"
> > > like? It's fiction! It doesn't have to be like
> the real world! That's
> > > why it's called "fiction"... So-called "science"
> fiction is often
> > > not scientific. More emphasis on the "fiction"
> part, instead. If you
> > > don't like that, and want something closer to
> "science" science
> > > fiction then you won't find a whole lot of it in
> Hollywood.
> >
> > I draw the line at rocks that float.
>
> http://www.infowest.com/life/20pumice.htm
>
> -tg
excellent :D
master1729
> operators,
> wanting to work for money or do lactate research or
> build low
> tech rocking cribs. Young Elvis Presley fans grow up
> to be old Elvis
> Presley grannies and never listen to a symphony in
> their life.
>
> Can I dis Michael Jackson? The punk doesn't belong to
> my era
> and a 50-year-old poof paedophile acting like a
> teenager doesn't
> do a thing for me.
>
>
>
>
>
bwahahahaha
Marvin the Martian
+1 !
tadchem
> Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>
> There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
> No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>
> is the science behind that?
>
> all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
> magically between bodies.
>
> If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a John Travlota
> Scientology film.
>
> Christ, no ray-guns even.
There are a lot of people who cannot distinguish "science fiction",
"fantasy", and "the real world."
It seems to be a prerequisite for 'journalism' or 'politics.'
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
jmfbahciv
> On Jan 2, 4:01 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Hey, where's the science in this alleged "science fiction" epic?
>>
>> Chemists have figured out all the elements a long time ago.
>> There are no "magic" elements waiting to be discovered.
>> No dilithium crystals, no Upsadaisium.
>>
>> Rocks that float? Give me a fucking break. What, pray tell,
>> is the science behind that?
>>
>> Instead of science, we get a load of New Age claptrap about
>> all souls being connected together, that souls can be transferred
>> magically between bodies.
>>
>> If I wanted to see such nonsense I'd go to a John Travlota
>> Scientology film.
>>
>> Christ, no ray-guns even.
>
> There are a lot of people who cannot distinguish "science fiction",
> "fantasy", and "the real world."
Yep. The library in Southboro, Mass dumped all the scifi books
but kept all the fantasy books which were marked as scifi. The
library here, in Michigan, distinguishes between scifi and
fantasy but shelves them in the scifi section. I found this
very interesting.
>
> It seems to be a prerequisite for 'journalism' or 'politics.'
A type of thinking which is a virus.
/BAH