Speaking of the anniversary, I was able to see the movie Moon, which was an amazing bit of SciFi. I don't want to give away much, considering how much effort the director took in making the movie unfold the way it did, but it deals with a single person living on the Moon for the sake of harvesting helium for fusion reactors on the Earth. The plot is heavy, but the way it came off was brilliant.
It has been in the theaters for a long while now, so showings are slowly disappearing. I recommend seeing it sooner than later. And how about in two days when the solar eclipse happens?
Monday, July 20, 2009
We Chose to Go
Forty years ago today (Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play)...
No, forty years ago today, we landed on the Moon, the nearest natural satellite to the Earth.
And amazingly, today we can still view where the Apollo 14 astronauts first took their steps.
One day, perhaps in my lifetime, similar video and pictures will be seen, but on the surface of Mars. Maybe we need to listen to those that went boldly where no one had gone before.
No, forty years ago today, we landed on the Moon, the nearest natural satellite to the Earth.
And amazingly, today we can still view where the Apollo 14 astronauts first took their steps.
One day, perhaps in my lifetime, similar video and pictures will be seen, but on the surface of Mars. Maybe we need to listen to those that went boldly where no one had gone before.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Fiat Vita!
A recent article in Nature has just blown me away. Apparently, scientists at the University of Manchester have been able to produce ribonucleotides in the lab under pre-biotic conditions. That means that the building blocks of RNA, a building block of DNA, can be produced in the chemistry and conditions of Earth before life began. This is even bigger than the Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950s, not only because the chemistry more accurately represents the early Earth, but also because this was a major hurdle to the RNA world hypothesis, that life began with self-replicating RNA molecules. See the summary here.
I'm only a small bit weary because it is said articles in Nature have a tendency to be wrong because the magazine is so prestigious that scientists feel inclined to extend the results of their experiments beyond what the data allows. However, this seems to be a bit more direct.
So, this means that this is a new piece of evidence that strongly indicates that the Earth had the chemistry to allow life to originate on the planet without outside sources, be that panspermia or divine intervention. It's studies like this that make me wish I took more biology. This is simply awesome.
I'm only a small bit weary because it is said articles in Nature have a tendency to be wrong because the magazine is so prestigious that scientists feel inclined to extend the results of their experiments beyond what the data allows. However, this seems to be a bit more direct.
So, this means that this is a new piece of evidence that strongly indicates that the Earth had the chemistry to allow life to originate on the planet without outside sources, be that panspermia or divine intervention. It's studies like this that make me wish I took more biology. This is simply awesome.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Republican "History"
I don't watch too much TV, in part by not having a TV and also because I prefer much of what I can get through the Internet. At least then I can choose what I want to see, not have to wait long, minimize commercials, and check for accuracy if I am trying to get information. If I had watched certain TV networks, I would probably be way off kilter from reality, something I prefer to know.
Too bad Fox News and certain Republicans don't hold to that philosophy. Here are some recent examples with video and commentary by TV figures and myself.
Let's start with the ever-incredibly wrong Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Previously I noted that she didn't know or care to know squat about global warming and CO2, but apparently her ignorance isn't limited to science. History is also a weakness for her. Here are some excerpts lifted by Keith Olbermann:
Confirming Video
These facts are easily accessible by anyone with the ability to type into Google. Hell, anyone with their high school history book! I remember learning about this act under Hoover back in 10th grade. One would think that if you became a major politician you would at least know the history of the country and its decisions. But not Miss Bachmann.
Moving onto certain "news" outlets, Bill O'Reilly has been a staunch defender of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture), but had to run through the history department at Fox News to see if President Obama, himself a scholar of law, was correct that former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, resisted the urges to torture Nazi prisoners even when London was being bombed by German aircraft, not to mention the fear of an invasion of the homeland in 1940-41. So Bill tried to argue the following:
Note that Bill's source is some professor and a university I'm not greatly familiar with, but none the less Bill is not using primary sources, let alone examining context nor anything else a historian would consider. Note also that Bill has made astoundingly wrong statements about WWII history, such as the massacre of Malmedy, blaming Americans for killing unarmed German soldiers when in fact it was exactly the opposite. Now, I don't consider most journalists or pundits on TV to be historians, but it seems Keith Olbermann was able to do that far better than Bill.
Keith goes to Churchill's own writings, a man who wrote profusely--this guy's history of a cabinet meeting would make Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War seem like a short read. Keith also pointed out the historical context for the positions Churchill took, the only way any historian should consider a moment in time. With better documentation and perspective, Keith produces a powerful rebuttal to O'Reilly and shows a much better wielding of historical methodology.
Finally, the biggest rationalization of all time! What could it be? Well, it's related to the Catholic Church and the heliocentric model.
There you have it, if someone is mortal, then it doesn't matter what happened to them or by whom. This is the biggest moral blank check I can possibly conceive of, and that is exactly what Kilmeade has done. Obviously he didn't take any philosophy courses while at Long Island University. Brian, that was some powerful stupid, perhaps even more so than that said by Bachmann. And that is some stiff competition.
Now, I did include a lot from Keith Olbermann, a big-time liberal, but his videos included the relevant samples that I was interested in, and Keith's commentaries on these points are unfortunately accurate (unfortunate for those at Fox and the GOP, that is). I may not agree with his assessment of a Republican take-over of history for the sake of Orwellian control of the masses, as it could be just plain stupidity and ego. But who knows.
And one last piece of crap from the friends at Fox and Friends. They had on ID proponent Casey Luskin, a person who is not a biologist but knows all biologists are wrong (except Michael Behe). I will let a realy biologist point out the errors in his recent comments on Fox.
This video includes clips from "Flock of Dodos" with another biologist.
It's wonderful how much Steven Doocey plays along with the utterly false statements by Luskin. Does Doocey really remember drawings in his high school biology book, especially since they probably were never there and certainly were not used to prove evolution. The blind lead the blind, hand in hand. Again, promoting the agenda of those that wish to dull the masses? You be the judge.
Nonetheless, stupidity seems to be the name of the game in modern American politics. I'm sure Republicans don't have a monopoly of this, but one must call a spade and spade, especially when this is the party that during the 2008 presidential elections had three candidates openly not believe in evolution (and Ron Paul later), had its main candidate call a planetarium star projector just some overpriced overhead projector, and a vice-presidential candidate who didn't know anything about international politics (such as the Bush Doctrine) and scoffed at fruit fly research, a primary vehicle of genetic research. This makes me want to purchase Charles Pierce's Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. Because, after all,
Too bad Fox News and certain Republicans don't hold to that philosophy. Here are some recent examples with video and commentary by TV figures and myself.
Let's start with the ever-incredibly wrong Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Previously I noted that she didn't know or care to know squat about global warming and CO2, but apparently her ignorance isn't limited to science. History is also a weakness for her. Here are some excerpts lifted by Keith Olbermann:
Confirming Video
These facts are easily accessible by anyone with the ability to type into Google. Hell, anyone with their high school history book! I remember learning about this act under Hoover back in 10th grade. One would think that if you became a major politician you would at least know the history of the country and its decisions. But not Miss Bachmann.
Moving onto certain "news" outlets, Bill O'Reilly has been a staunch defender of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture), but had to run through the history department at Fox News to see if President Obama, himself a scholar of law, was correct that former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, resisted the urges to torture Nazi prisoners even when London was being bombed by German aircraft, not to mention the fear of an invasion of the homeland in 1940-41. So Bill tried to argue the following:
Note that Bill's source is some professor and a university I'm not greatly familiar with, but none the less Bill is not using primary sources, let alone examining context nor anything else a historian would consider. Note also that Bill has made astoundingly wrong statements about WWII history, such as the massacre of Malmedy, blaming Americans for killing unarmed German soldiers when in fact it was exactly the opposite. Now, I don't consider most journalists or pundits on TV to be historians, but it seems Keith Olbermann was able to do that far better than Bill.
Keith goes to Churchill's own writings, a man who wrote profusely--this guy's history of a cabinet meeting would make Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War seem like a short read. Keith also pointed out the historical context for the positions Churchill took, the only way any historian should consider a moment in time. With better documentation and perspective, Keith produces a powerful rebuttal to O'Reilly and shows a much better wielding of historical methodology.
Finally, the biggest rationalization of all time! What could it be? Well, it's related to the Catholic Church and the heliocentric model.
There you have it, if someone is mortal, then it doesn't matter what happened to them or by whom. This is the biggest moral blank check I can possibly conceive of, and that is exactly what Kilmeade has done. Obviously he didn't take any philosophy courses while at Long Island University. Brian, that was some powerful stupid, perhaps even more so than that said by Bachmann. And that is some stiff competition.
Now, I did include a lot from Keith Olbermann, a big-time liberal, but his videos included the relevant samples that I was interested in, and Keith's commentaries on these points are unfortunately accurate (unfortunate for those at Fox and the GOP, that is). I may not agree with his assessment of a Republican take-over of history for the sake of Orwellian control of the masses, as it could be just plain stupidity and ego. But who knows.
And one last piece of crap from the friends at Fox and Friends. They had on ID proponent Casey Luskin, a person who is not a biologist but knows all biologists are wrong (except Michael Behe). I will let a realy biologist point out the errors in his recent comments on Fox.
This video includes clips from "Flock of Dodos" with another biologist.
It's wonderful how much Steven Doocey plays along with the utterly false statements by Luskin. Does Doocey really remember drawings in his high school biology book, especially since they probably were never there and certainly were not used to prove evolution. The blind lead the blind, hand in hand. Again, promoting the agenda of those that wish to dull the masses? You be the judge.
Nonetheless, stupidity seems to be the name of the game in modern American politics. I'm sure Republicans don't have a monopoly of this, but one must call a spade and spade, especially when this is the party that during the 2008 presidential elections had three candidates openly not believe in evolution (and Ron Paul later), had its main candidate call a planetarium star projector just some overpriced overhead projector, and a vice-presidential candidate who didn't know anything about international politics (such as the Bush Doctrine) and scoffed at fruit fly research, a primary vehicle of genetic research. This makes me want to purchase Charles Pierce's Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. Because, after all,
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Powerful Crazy in the House--Bachmann is Clueless
It was recently Earth Day, so many had to "think green" because of environmental concerns. The biggest concern recently has been with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is usually some level of equilibrium on sufficiently large scales of the gas in the atmosphere between production and consumption by things on earth, both biological and geological. If such an equilibrium were to be thrown off enough, it could lead to a warming trend in world temperatures which can lead to significant climatological problems for things that depend on its current state, including us humans. Human activity with the burning of fossil fuels, which return much of the stored carbon in the earth back into the atmosphere , has raised CO2 levels to a higher level than has been seen in history and far into prehistory.
It is the strong consensus of climatological scientists that CO2 levels have increased and are causing changes in the climate, that humans are a primary cause in the increase of CO2 levels, and that the effects will bring harm. However, the scenarios of what could happen do not include Armageddon. There may be increases of famine do to drying conditions, loss of property due to rising water levels, etc. Humans will survive the climate change; we just won't be happy, and the costs of such warming could very well outweigh any costs in trying to prevent or weaken this fate.
So, what the hell is up with Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota)?
That is some powerful stupid.
CO2 is natural from nature, etc. Yeah, so is radium. So are tornadoes. So are plagues. What an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
No study to show that CO2 is harmful. Um, the problem isn't that CO2 levels will get to high to be poisonous. That would be a problem with something like mercury. (If the levels of CO2 were high enough, there would be problems, but that isn't the case for what industrialization is being blames for.) CO2 levels on the rise lead to problems with the environment, which then affects us. And if you want to see that CO2 can be harmful in itself, why do you think plastic bags say "Keep away from infants"? Because they will suffocate!
CO2 makes up ~3% of the atmosphere. Rep. Bachmann, ever hear of Wikipedia? If you had, you would know that you are off by two orders of magnitude. Not a trivial error. If she was right, we would all be dead.
Humans have increases CO2 by only 3%. Try ~30%.
And what is the most probable source?
CO2 levels are well away from natural levels for the last ~million years. Human activity is the most likely source, and the effects are becoming known.
So, which this many pictures, I have to include one more, taken from Bad Astronomy.
It is the strong consensus of climatological scientists that CO2 levels have increased and are causing changes in the climate, that humans are a primary cause in the increase of CO2 levels, and that the effects will bring harm. However, the scenarios of what could happen do not include Armageddon. There may be increases of famine do to drying conditions, loss of property due to rising water levels, etc. Humans will survive the climate change; we just won't be happy, and the costs of such warming could very well outweigh any costs in trying to prevent or weaken this fate.
So, what the hell is up with Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota)?
That is some powerful stupid.
CO2 is natural from nature, etc. Yeah, so is radium. So are tornadoes. So are plagues. What an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
No study to show that CO2 is harmful. Um, the problem isn't that CO2 levels will get to high to be poisonous. That would be a problem with something like mercury. (If the levels of CO2 were high enough, there would be problems, but that isn't the case for what industrialization is being blames for.) CO2 levels on the rise lead to problems with the environment, which then affects us. And if you want to see that CO2 can be harmful in itself, why do you think plastic bags say "Keep away from infants"? Because they will suffocate!
CO2 makes up ~3% of the atmosphere. Rep. Bachmann, ever hear of Wikipedia? If you had, you would know that you are off by two orders of magnitude. Not a trivial error. If she was right, we would all be dead.
Humans have increases CO2 by only 3%. Try ~30%.
And what is the most probable source?
CO2 levels are well away from natural levels for the last ~million years. Human activity is the most likely source, and the effects are becoming known.So, which this many pictures, I have to include one more, taken from Bad Astronomy.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The UN and Religion
Apparently, yesterday the United Nations passed a resolution in the General Assembly that included an amendment to combat the "defamation of religion". Such a title already seems more broad than should be desired by any nation with freedom of speech. When it comes to discrimination of people because of religion, this should easily be called unjust, and the UN already passed such a resolution some time ago.
Okay, first to put this in perspective. The UN has no real teeth. Money and troops come under UN control if other nations are willing to give such things. Much of the money comes from the United States and troops are many from the US and Europe, but hardly exclusively (perhaps not even in the majority?). This resolution was also passed in the General Assembly, not the Security Council which producing much more binding statements. The GA can only produce "symbolic" statements for other nations to take heart, but such resolutions certainly cannot change member-state constitutions. The US can ignore this resolution as it can most things the UN throws out, or as did Iraq according to the run-up statements before the war began in 2003. However, the existence of such a resolution passed by the majority of nations in the United Nations does send out a diplomatic shield to those it would protect. The question is, does the resolution protect those unfairly maligned by the prejudices of kooks and bigots, or does this give cover to nations and organizations with religious zealotry which do harm to citizens of the world?
So, what does the statement even say? Is it going to hinder free speech? I thought that perhaps some had over-hyped the nature of this resolution, making seem worse than it is. I first learned of it through sources such as Christopher Hitchens, a well known opponent of religion, an "anti-theist" by his own admission, so perhaps he was biased in his report for Slate.com. But is he right? Does the resolution want to limit free speech and criticism of religion? Well, yes.
For example, Paragraph 100, Section 5 says that states should
The resolution also points the blame at right-wingers against Islam who try to use xenophobia to rack up political points. That ignores liberals that attack this religion, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. (I would probably add myself, since I'm no right-winger, but I'm not a hippy as well.) The Dutch MP Geert Wilders seems to be in view of the UN resolution, whose documentary "Fitna" created a large stir on the Internet. I agree with critics of the film that it is more anti-immigrant than a proper critic of Islam, but we don't need to look far to find a Dutch MP producing a documentary critical of Islam.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali created a documentary years ago with a decendent of Van Goeth, and the director was killed! Ali has been under protection of years from a similar fate in the US. Ali is also part of a liberal party in the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD); Geert used to be a member of this same part, but changed in 2006 to a right-wing group called the "Party of Freedom". Geert left the VVD because it was favorable to Turkey's inclusion into the EU, so he was much more against Islamic nations than the VVD in general. Ali can also give more valid criticism of Islam having been Muslim for much of her life and even chanted death threats to Salmon Rushdie.
Apparently now, if Ali, who was abused under Islam, dares criticize, she can be called a xenophobe because of this resolution. How different from the case of the murdering and raping monster in Austria. Should he be given protections if he declared that his actions were part of his religious tradition? Would criticism of his actions be "backward" and "elitist"? If not, then why not the forced circumsizion of women, the stoning of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals, the death of apostates? Why does religion get a pass?
Obviously, this resolution is truly backward from what any sensible enlightened institution should produce. Imagine if this was passed in the days of Hume; his discourses on natural religion and human reason would have to be outlawed according to this nonsense. Bertrand Russel would have been sent to jail. The intellectual tradition of Western thought would be against the law, the tradition of free inquiry and the ability of all ideas coming to the free market to see what wins out. Apparently, religion has to be protected. Perhaps because it cannot stand up?
Fortunately, I live in the USA, and my country voted against this resolution, along with Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and even Israel, along with many other European nations. It's odd that nations such as Japan did not vote, and Russia voted in favor. I'm betting any nation I end up living in will most likely be against this piece of tripe. Well, as a citizen of the Red, White, and Blue, I must say, God bless . . . er, good goin', the USA.
Okay, first to put this in perspective. The UN has no real teeth. Money and troops come under UN control if other nations are willing to give such things. Much of the money comes from the United States and troops are many from the US and Europe, but hardly exclusively (perhaps not even in the majority?). This resolution was also passed in the General Assembly, not the Security Council which producing much more binding statements. The GA can only produce "symbolic" statements for other nations to take heart, but such resolutions certainly cannot change member-state constitutions. The US can ignore this resolution as it can most things the UN throws out, or as did Iraq according to the run-up statements before the war began in 2003. However, the existence of such a resolution passed by the majority of nations in the United Nations does send out a diplomatic shield to those it would protect. The question is, does the resolution protect those unfairly maligned by the prejudices of kooks and bigots, or does this give cover to nations and organizations with religious zealotry which do harm to citizens of the world?
So, what does the statement even say? Is it going to hinder free speech? I thought that perhaps some had over-hyped the nature of this resolution, making seem worse than it is. I first learned of it through sources such as Christopher Hitchens, a well known opponent of religion, an "anti-theist" by his own admission, so perhaps he was biased in his report for Slate.com. But is he right? Does the resolution want to limit free speech and criticism of religion? Well, yes.
For example, Paragraph 100, Section 5 says that states should
take serious steps to address the contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and in this context to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.So, I'm not supposed to defame religious personalities, holy books, and so on. Of course, I can defame politicians all I want. Why can't I say bad things about the Pope or certain Ayatollahs? Does this mean biblical criticism is off now? Bye-bye Documentary Hypothesis.
The resolution also points the blame at right-wingers against Islam who try to use xenophobia to rack up political points. That ignores liberals that attack this religion, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. (I would probably add myself, since I'm no right-winger, but I'm not a hippy as well.) The Dutch MP Geert Wilders seems to be in view of the UN resolution, whose documentary "Fitna" created a large stir on the Internet. I agree with critics of the film that it is more anti-immigrant than a proper critic of Islam, but we don't need to look far to find a Dutch MP producing a documentary critical of Islam.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali created a documentary years ago with a decendent of Van Goeth, and the director was killed! Ali has been under protection of years from a similar fate in the US. Ali is also part of a liberal party in the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD); Geert used to be a member of this same part, but changed in 2006 to a right-wing group called the "Party of Freedom". Geert left the VVD because it was favorable to Turkey's inclusion into the EU, so he was much more against Islamic nations than the VVD in general. Ali can also give more valid criticism of Islam having been Muslim for much of her life and even chanted death threats to Salmon Rushdie.
Apparently now, if Ali, who was abused under Islam, dares criticize, she can be called a xenophobe because of this resolution. How different from the case of the murdering and raping monster in Austria. Should he be given protections if he declared that his actions were part of his religious tradition? Would criticism of his actions be "backward" and "elitist"? If not, then why not the forced circumsizion of women, the stoning of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals, the death of apostates? Why does religion get a pass?
Obviously, this resolution is truly backward from what any sensible enlightened institution should produce. Imagine if this was passed in the days of Hume; his discourses on natural religion and human reason would have to be outlawed according to this nonsense. Bertrand Russel would have been sent to jail. The intellectual tradition of Western thought would be against the law, the tradition of free inquiry and the ability of all ideas coming to the free market to see what wins out. Apparently, religion has to be protected. Perhaps because it cannot stand up?
Fortunately, I live in the USA, and my country voted against this resolution, along with Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and even Israel, along with many other European nations. It's odd that nations such as Japan did not vote, and Russia voted in favor. I'm betting any nation I end up living in will most likely be against this piece of tripe. Well, as a citizen of the Red, White, and Blue, I must say, God bless . . . er, good goin', the USA.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Going to the Movies--Science and the Big Screen
Looks likes this is going to be another fun year of cinema with movies about Wolverine, Star Trek, and Transformers. The film "Knowing" also looks interesting, but Nicholas Cage movies can be very hit or miss with me. He also seems to be doing a fair bit of cinema on the occult, such as cryptic symbols in hiding secrets of America and now the hidden dimensionality of causation in the universe found in a time capsule.
Recently, I went to see the highly-anticipated "Watchmen". When it comes to graphic gore, it seems like "300" was a warm-up for this attraction. So much happened that it's hard to keep it all in my head--it was also nearly three hours long, but that didn't bother me since it was all necessary. I also like what this story, as well as "The Dark Knight" have done with the concept of the Hero. These ideas have developed so much from the early days of comics: hero comes, beats up bad guys, all is great, but maybe there is a cliff hanger such as there was at the end of every Batman episode back in the '60s. And for a movie with lots of blood and some sex, there didn't seem to be that much cursing, unlike "Casino" which had a rate of F-bombs per minute. I will now need to read the graphic novel to see what changed, considering the creator of the book was not pleased by the film version.
Also coming up soon is "Angels & Demons", again with Tom Hanks (great actor) and director Ron Howard (director of movies such as "Apollo 13" and "Frost/Nixon"). This one is a must-see for me not because of the novel, but because of CERN. The book wasn't that great to me, and the ending had so many twists Dan Brown made me feel like a ragged doll being whipped about. But the movie crew actually took a trip to CERN to look at the detectors and center, and it looks like they were inspired (taken from this trailer clip).
It looks like the rendered the ATLAS detector pretty well, but this glassed-in section at the bottom? Definetely not there in reality. It had to be there for a part of the book where the scientists and Langdon watch a matter-antimatter collision. Of course, when CERN is running there will be a huge amount of bremsstrahlung radiation. Also, this image only was sensible when the detector was being put together. This is no space to see anything, and all the activity is happening inside pipes and the core of this detector, leaving nothing to see. Besides, the collisions can only be detected with the use of advanced electronics; the eye isn't the best for viewing kaons.
Also, note the fashion of the scientists there. White coats? Total stereotype. These guys are chemists at the lab. When I was at CERN, most everyone was wearing much more casual clothing: blue jeans, tee shirts, etc. But it seems that crazy white hair and a lab coat and a crazy personality it just what Hollywood portrays the scientist as. For example see Doc from "Back to the Future". I don't necessarily mind. Bill Nye plays on the stereotype as well, comically and educationally, so I don't have a problem. But it should be pointed out that the dress of these guys on the set is quite reality.
The antimatter is also comical from a scientific standpoint.
That glowing mystery substance? Antimatter? In reality, antimatter is no different from normal matter except that the particles have their opposite charge. Electrons are positive (so called positrons), protons are negatively charged. In a universe dominated by antimatter, I would look the same. The only problem happens when matter and antimatter meet, and when that happens they annihilate and produce pure energy. If this matter was glowing, it would be because the vacuum is not perfect and the stuff is giving off photons, probably some gamma rays. In other words, you can think of the substance as decaying. By the end of the movie, there is no antimatter to "explode", and whoever carried this thing around will suffer a bad radiation dose.
Still, the trailer looks great, even more action-packed than the book it felt. The editors knew what they were doing. I'm also interested to see how much Vatican history the movie will talk about; from what I can gather, it won't be much better than the "history" found in "The Da Vinci Code". I bet the Catholic League will be all up-in-arms again when this movie comes out. Isn't that reason to see the film?
Recently, I went to see the highly-anticipated "Watchmen". When it comes to graphic gore, it seems like "300" was a warm-up for this attraction. So much happened that it's hard to keep it all in my head--it was also nearly three hours long, but that didn't bother me since it was all necessary. I also like what this story, as well as "The Dark Knight" have done with the concept of the Hero. These ideas have developed so much from the early days of comics: hero comes, beats up bad guys, all is great, but maybe there is a cliff hanger such as there was at the end of every Batman episode back in the '60s. And for a movie with lots of blood and some sex, there didn't seem to be that much cursing, unlike "Casino" which had a rate of F-bombs per minute. I will now need to read the graphic novel to see what changed, considering the creator of the book was not pleased by the film version.
Also coming up soon is "Angels & Demons", again with Tom Hanks (great actor) and director Ron Howard (director of movies such as "Apollo 13" and "Frost/Nixon"). This one is a must-see for me not because of the novel, but because of CERN. The book wasn't that great to me, and the ending had so many twists Dan Brown made me feel like a ragged doll being whipped about. But the movie crew actually took a trip to CERN to look at the detectors and center, and it looks like they were inspired (taken from this trailer clip).
It looks like the rendered the ATLAS detector pretty well, but this glassed-in section at the bottom? Definetely not there in reality. It had to be there for a part of the book where the scientists and Langdon watch a matter-antimatter collision. Of course, when CERN is running there will be a huge amount of bremsstrahlung radiation. Also, this image only was sensible when the detector was being put together. This is no space to see anything, and all the activity is happening inside pipes and the core of this detector, leaving nothing to see. Besides, the collisions can only be detected with the use of advanced electronics; the eye isn't the best for viewing kaons.
Also, note the fashion of the scientists there. White coats? Total stereotype. These guys are chemists at the lab. When I was at CERN, most everyone was wearing much more casual clothing: blue jeans, tee shirts, etc. But it seems that crazy white hair and a lab coat and a crazy personality it just what Hollywood portrays the scientist as. For example see Doc from "Back to the Future". I don't necessarily mind. Bill Nye plays on the stereotype as well, comically and educationally, so I don't have a problem. But it should be pointed out that the dress of these guys on the set is quite reality.
The antimatter is also comical from a scientific standpoint.
That glowing mystery substance? Antimatter? In reality, antimatter is no different from normal matter except that the particles have their opposite charge. Electrons are positive (so called positrons), protons are negatively charged. In a universe dominated by antimatter, I would look the same. The only problem happens when matter and antimatter meet, and when that happens they annihilate and produce pure energy. If this matter was glowing, it would be because the vacuum is not perfect and the stuff is giving off photons, probably some gamma rays. In other words, you can think of the substance as decaying. By the end of the movie, there is no antimatter to "explode", and whoever carried this thing around will suffer a bad radiation dose.
Still, the trailer looks great, even more action-packed than the book it felt. The editors knew what they were doing. I'm also interested to see how much Vatican history the movie will talk about; from what I can gather, it won't be much better than the "history" found in "The Da Vinci Code". I bet the Catholic League will be all up-in-arms again when this movie comes out. Isn't that reason to see the film?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)