Sciencey Stuff

Related stuff:

First, is that Roger Ebert criticizes the new Star Trek movie, in part, for its poor and imprecise grasp of science… and uses imprecise language to do so. Such as: “Consider, at light warp speeds, how imprecise it would be to say “At my command … 3 … 2 … 1 …” Between “2” and “1,” you could jump a million galaxies.”

A million galaxies, Rog? Light Warp speeds? Thanks for clearing up their terrible grasp of science.

If I were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, I’d suggest he was doing so deliberately as a sort of shot at the imprecise science; but if so, it was poorly executed, and thus no better than honestly sloppy science.

And speaking of boldly going where no man has gone before, etc. There’s this bit about ongoing mysteries from New Scientist; not so much anything to say about the article itself, which seems to be a recently updated retread from circa 2005, but just the notion that there are still all these fundamental mysteries out there that could radically change our perception of the universe (and, in Star Trek tie-in, our ability to manipulate it). I’m just bummed that I feel like I need an advanced degree in science to grok most of those questions.

Mirrored from Bum Scoop.