theyr really missed a good chance there. they could have had a bunch of cats get sucked up out of a pet store or a nature reserve and made a "pussy-nado!". or a gatornado, a croconado, a people back, an insectnado, a octonado, a squidnado, etc... the possibilities were endless! what a boring and dull miss of a great chance to expand the "nado universe!". I feel so dissapointed!
I like how the gravity of the passing moon was enough to lift a large tree off the ground (probably around two to four tons), but not a person. Also, the moon managed to avoid destroying or disrupting any of the communication satellites, even allowing GPS to still work so that they could find the kids out in the middle of nowhere. Hollywood writers must be on the same intellectual level as habitual glue-sniffers.
@@YTANDY100 I gave them the benefit of the doubt that intellect was involved. But in truth, we know it was either write that movie or reconsider becoming s*x workers.
I don't mean to sound argumanitive for no reason but I've seen a lot of flat Earthers misuse this concept so I figure I'll clear something up. Either the gravity is enough to lift objects or it's not. There's no such thing as strong enough to lift a tree but not a child, nor only strong enough to lift a child but not a tree etc. It's gravity, gravity lifts thing with more mass with greater overall force and at the same acceleration. Don't get into the territory of "How come gravity is apparently strong enough to hold in the oceans but not a hydrogen molecule?" lol.
@@bornkinggamer3347 Not sure where the word "strong" entered the picture, but I'm pretty sure a gradient of gravity is typically involved. I'm talking about the scene in which one adult is stuck under the tree, another is trying to lift it, and although the gravity is enough to lighten the tree enough for a small woman to lift it, the two people and everything else around them remain firmly on the ground. Pretty sure all three objects should have been lighter, tree and people. At the very least, the woman should have been lifted off of the ground before the tree.
becky didnt talk about the elefant in the room. a white dorf is in fact a compresed star with a mass billions time greater of Earth . in reality if Earth came so close to a white dorf as the moon is to Earth than it will orbit the white dorf reaching relativistic speeds and transform into a ring of dust instantly.
Thanks for reacting to Moonfall. Saw it yesterday and although I liked it as a disaster movie, my mind was going in overdrive all the time. "This is not true", "this would'nt happen that way", "that's bs" and so on and so on. Making these movies cost many millions of dollars; why don't they hire a professor or an astrophysicist like you to have a look at the script first 😂
Suspension of disbelief - do that enough times so that the viewers don't realise what they are buying in to, and you get exactly the effect that Don't Look Up or Idiocracy portray so well - a world of credulous idiots.
What I love about the white dwarf insode the moon part is the fact that you used Math to point out stupidity, and that's my favourite thing in the world.
@@ocaraevil well, there is also a lower limit on the mass of a sun, as below that, fusion cannot take place, so it stays as a brown dwarf, and doesn't turn into a white dwarf. Also, with smaller stars where fusion does occur; red dwarfs, they are actually super stable, so their main sequence lasts for 10s of billions of years, so no white dwarfs created from red dwarfs really exist yet in the universe, so it is basically impossible for the white dwarf shown could be from a tiny sun. hope this helps!
@@ocaraevil Even that "tiny sun" would have the mass of a thousand Earths. That means if the moon hid that mass inside, Earth would be orbiting the moon... Not to mention that fact that it would probably have thrown Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn out of the solar system.
becky didnt talk about the elefant in the room. a white dorf is in fact a compresed star with a mass billions time greater of Earth . in reality if Earth came so close to a white dorf as the moon is to Earth than it will orbit the white dorf reaching relativistic speeds and transform into a ring of dust instantly.
Thank you for watching this so I didn't have to. The title of this one made me particularly sad because there was a 1998 novel called "Moonfall" which was both very good and was also committed to realistic physics. In this one an object from outside the solar system hit the moon hard enough to shatter it. Most of the debris stays safely in orbit but one dangerously large rock is going to impact and smart people do heroic things to save the earth. Would have made a great movie. Ah well.
If I remember right, there were signs that the object might have been an RKKV from what I remember. Suspicious outgassing, and signs of refined metals if I recall correctly. Granted, the sheer energy liberated from exceeding the gravitational binding energy would have sterlized the planet from the absurd shine from the event, but it was pretty good.
Please keep uploading videos,I understand you are unbelievably busy with your work but your videos are so easy to watch and you get rid of all the misinformation about physics and space that is out there and your reaction videos are hilarious,keep up the good and important work for amateurs like myself and everyone else 👍👌
Would love to see you rank sci-fi films by scientific accuracy. I would also be interested in how much you enjoyed each of the films. Would be interesting to see if you prefer the more accurate films over the less accurate films.
I was thinking something similar. The moon falling towards the earth is more inspired by nightmares than science... I've had crazy dreams like that. Maybe that is not suprising after growing up in the 1980s when the year 2000 sounded like the end of the world and wondering how the world might end if not at the turn of the millennium maybe some other time within the lifetime of my generation?!! So why wonder what to do when I grow up if the world might end before I get to 30 - or 40 - now it looks like I might make it to old age after all, so the longer I can stay on Earth the more amazing scientific discoveries and space industry progress I'll hear about. Maybe people will make it to Mars one day?! I'm still skeptical about that but would be impressed enough if they make it back to the Moon. I don't mind watching reviews and reactions on TH-cam before or without seeing the films - if gives me a better idea of whether or not they are worth watching.
See Dr Becky’s analysis of The Expanse for great examples how how she applies good objective review on the “truth” behind some popular science fiction.
The funny thing is, that I understood every word you said. And I am a hairdresser, not an astrophysicist. So come on Emmerich. It is not that hard to do a fun movie with a little bit of accuracy 🙄
So, since Roland Emmerich was born in Stuttgart, let me give you some kind of explanation. In Germany, there's this saying, "Was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht." Which literally means, "What doesn't fit will be made to fit." I guess he followed that premise while making the movie.
@@Nitidus Yea, i assumed that was the case too. He probably knows that his movie's science is shit but made it anyway cuz the premise was movie-worthy.
As a hairdresser you're probably vastly more intelligent than most people working on Hollywood blockbusters :D Emmerich is notorious for complete crap, and as a person coming from the same country I apologize. But then again, he fits well into Hollywood.
The funnier thing is that when Emmerich made a passion project it was about an anonymous person writing as Shakespeare in Elizabethan times. Which just goes to show that for all the c**p he puts out he is probably crying himself to sleep that he has to shovel this out just to get a little studio support on the things he actually wants to work on. Roland Emmerich is basically Jim Henson - if Henson had made disaster films instead of Muppets content. Henson had to make a never ending amount of muppets stuff before he got support to make Dark Crystal - albeit something tells me he had more fun than Emmerich doing his day job.
Hi Dr. Becky, watching your videos and the whole science community, after losing my Job i've decided to go back to college and then Uni to study Astrophysics I know it's not going to be easy and going to take a good 4-5 years to do and at 37 is scary but i'm enjoy looking at the stars and trying to come up with idea's and being a Programmer from 2007 I just want to thank you for all your video's and helping me understand what your day to day work life is like and how much you enjoy it even if it's stressful.
Yes, would like to see a ranking video for realistic to unrealistic. I really enjoy your reaction videos. Also like when you break down scientific papers for people who are not astrophysicist.
i just found your channel about a month ago. You are incredible and the most "down to earth" astrophysicist on social media. Keep up all the great work!
I remember getting verbally ripped into when I asked a British film professor about "The Day After Tomorrow." He kept complaining about how none of it was realistic at all.
Same here I love Interstellar , yet even i, who used to look through a telescope from aged 7 but in no way educated in astrophysics , Found some of the facts a bit stretchy... But I loved it and wish I could travel through a wormhole like Coop.🙂
Would love to see you react to Sunshine(2007). Michelle Yeoh and Cillian Murphy are excellent. From an interested layman's perspective I feel like their solution to the problem of the film is absurd, but the parts about how they travel to get to solve the problem are less absurd? I may be totally off base and they might be equally absurd though. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Same here. That film sort of felt like an unholy hybrid of Chinese and Musk propaganda in an extremely fantasy scifi skin. That said it is a pretty cool premise/setting so at least that was pretty neat.
@@giin97 you know, this would be a great drinking game - have a shot each time anyone notices some obvious science nonsense. We all would be so wasted like 40 minutes in
There's a principle in literature that you don't make a [insert a profession here] to watch/see a movie, theater/stage play about [insert again that same profession] =P. It's called the "You don't go with Hercule Poirot to a crime mystery stage play" principle... =P
I feel like more youtubers have reacted to this movie then people who have actually watched it. Loved your review especially when you went for the calculator.
Reading the plot, watching reviews, and seeing these clips of absolute nonsense, science babble is enough to form a justifiable wrenching aversion to it and have reason to not watch it. Space Junk
11:14 You said it yourself. Gravity wave versus gravitational wave. Waves in the sea are really called gravity waves because guess what their restoring force is? Gravity.
Its so funny seeing Becky laugh at some points in the movie which makes me think that when a layman like myself watches this movie, we would be like 'What a nice apocalyptic sci-fi movie!' while at the same time scientists like Becky are like 'This is the most hilarious non sensical comedy since hitchhikers guide to the galaxy!' 🤣😂 This makes me want to see more movie reactions from her and how she breaks them down. Its awesome! Keep it up!
Oh man, there is so much that is awesome about Dr. Becky, but having her totally crack up when the character states that the moon is hollow is freaking wonderful! I don't know how much real arm-twisting it took for you to make this video, but I'm glad you gave in. :)
But also... Could a structure as large as the moon actually be hollow? How thick would the crust need to be to support the gravitational force? Would there be enough gravitational force to keep it as a sphere, or would it just fall apart?
A Dyson Sphere, watch the movie: the moon is a heretofore unbeknownst artificial object, artefact of an advanced civilisation AI. It has been tasked with saving the civilisation, Man, from a rogue self-aware AI update with serious QA issues. Thus the moon we knew is actually a vessel housing the AI and its facilities, a large construct that has attracted dust and rock to skin its surface for 4B years. That's the story premise that got its production budget. Nobody had to fact check the premise, they wuz making a movie, everyone knows sci-fi is bs etc etc just concentrate on teh story arc and good cgi. As for craters, I have no idea, it's simply not my job to answer ask the film writers.
Thank you Dr. Becky for sitting through this with us. I would love to see a list of sci fi films ranked for accuracy. I think many scientifically informed laymen watch things like this, know they are wrong, but aren't sure entirely how. Thank you for helping to inform us about movies and actually astronomy.🙂
As a point of note, even the least massive white dwarf (10% M solar), regardless of if it fits (in the moon), would be so massive that the Earth would revolve around it (the moon in this movie), instead of the normal moon around Earth.
But it would be so easy to fix the dialogue little bit to make it little less freaking dumb! It wouldn't take anything from the non-expert watchers, and would potentially add enough verisimilitude to make it watchable. Just contact at least ONE professional who knows about the real physics in the movie's premise, before finishing the script, please. It doesn't have to be completely realistic, just... somewhat believable. (Not directed at this movie alone)
@@Imupinta Granted this was an egregiously terrible movie, but I've seen other of these ''experts analyze'' videos and they just don't get it. Most of the nit picking goes over the vast movie goers head and in many(most) and with reviewer, they haven't seen the whole movie, which is what the typical movie goer is there for. There isn't a movie made that can't be nit picked in some way or another. When you go to a movie the first thing required is suspension of belief.
I have recently been on a binge watching streak with your videos lol A movie suggestion I have is a bit older and not as "flashy" as a lot of sci-fi but getting your take on Apollo 13 would be fun to watch. It's one of my favorite movies as I was growing up.
When I made the mistake of seeing the movie "2012", my reaction was that the UN and every government on Earth needed to pass a law to stop Roland Emmerich from ever making another movie.
@@ragingsithmaster Oh that name is a blast from the past haha! Didn't he get banned from using some tax loophole or something in Germany that was like his only way to finance those horrid movies?
@@olencone4005 I just remember being a fan of the mindless guilty pleasure fun of the Bloodrayne video games. Cheesy as it was, a movie adaptation deserved far better than HIM. And when he was prevented from making any more atrocities, he basically said it was because we were too dumb to grasp his brilliance.
My wife and I had so many laughs. The biggest were when the moon seemed to have more mass than Earth, since the moon's gravity could just rip objects right off of Earth.
Well they do make it clear that the moon's gravity field was artificial. The effects shown are still ridiculously inconsistent and unrealistic but they do at least give an explanation for the strength.
But not for the effects... Everything in the same gravitational field region falls in the same direction. Why would a child be attracted to the moon but not and adult, and all the free objects, cars, soil...
Erm... it couldn't though unless Moon's gravity was so very much more intense than Earth's that it would actually rip Earth apart, if I remember correctly.
I did say it was unrealistic and inconsistent. The only credit I gave was that the movie didn't pretend the moon's gravity was that strong normally. Everything past that they still completely screwed up. Like the space X fuel depot somehow still being in orbit by that point.
When I watched this movie, Dr. Becky was the first person that I thought of on how frustrated you would be about all the inaccuracies.. great video btw!
Dr. Becky, you are sooo cute reacting to this! You reminded me of me watching a military movie, I sit there and tear it apart, especially if it's a movie about the Marines!
I'd like to see a reaction video about the movie "the core". It has quite a bit of over the top stuff, but probably also a lot of scientific concepts to break down
11:26 Actually while a gravitational wave is definitely not what that "gravity wave" is but in fluid dynamics, there is a term named "Gravity wave" it means a wave which is influenced by gravity to restore equilibrium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave I found this also rather confusing at first but i guess it still makes sense
I noticed the same. Radiation of General Relativity is named as "Gravitational Wave" exactly /because/ the Term 'Gravity Wave' already was taken by fluid dynamics.
I just read the wikipedia article. Calling it a "gravity wave" wouldn't be useful in the context of the movie. It would be a tidal wave or a tsunami. Plus if it was a tidal surge, I don't think that would really fit with the definition of "gravity wave" given by Wikipedia, which describes most waves we regularly see on Earth.
@@atk05003 The article considers anything a gravity wave as long as gravity is the main driving force to recreate equilibrium again. A tsunami can be considered a gravity wave if you consider that the local water where the tsunami "emerged" was in equilibrium. A tidal wave is more complicated to name a gravity wave but even here the force of gravity is trying to restore equilibrium. Its just not the "let it be non-moving water" equilibrium. So could name it gravity wave. Eitherway the term exists and semantics are annoying.
@@derdotte I agree the term may apply, but it's not useful in the context, because it applies to too many types of waves. If the goal was to instill a sense of urgency, then "big wave" or "tsunami" would have worked better. If the goal was to point out that the moon's gravity was causing it, "tidal wave" or "tidal surge" would have been more informative.
Before I even start watching this, I can tell by Dr Becky's look of disdain/incredulity that it's going to be hilarious 😂 Edit: I was right. This was comedy gold. The fact you did the calculations was just perfect and just one of the many reasons I adore you! 😂 I would love to see your thoughts on the Empire's space-jumping ships (amongst other things) in Apple TV's adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation. Plus, that series has Lee Pace, which for me, is simply absolute viewing pleasure. 😉
@@mirzamay Well, I'll say it's only based loosely on the books, but I very much enjoyed it for what it was. The Empire arc was great to watch. I don't have Apple tv either so I just signed up for the 7 day free trial and watched it that way. 😊
Wish I had seen this review before I watched this movie two days ago. I like the idea of ranking sift movie based on their scientific accuracy. I appreciate all of your explanations.
The physics do become a bit irrelevant when the race involved is a couple of billion year old though, and you know, the moon is an ark and all that artificial stuff created by a race that is rather old. It's like Star Wars, you don't sit down and watch it to look at the physics.
The Expanse is my favorite space series. It stretches and sometimes breaks with known laws of physics but it's mostly real doable future science, based on our current knowledge.
Agree 100%, the only "problem" for me is that The Expanse "ruined" my experience watching "traditional" Sci Fi movies and TV shows sets in space, since it proves that great Sci Fi can be done without trashing the laws of physics.
She has done a vid on that, it seems to be correct mainly. The genre name of the film's does give it away that they aren't necessarily going to be perfect.
@@omargj1 That was one of the wins for Interstellar also -- in fact, Kip Thorne even published a book about the physics of Interstellar, and explained where Chris Nolan deviated from science for the sake of the movie... and it was quite surprising how little he did. And at the same time funded some genuine scientific research while making the movie. Double Negative didn't invent the visualization of Gargantua, a bunch of astrophysicists did. The artists at DNeg prettied up their model. I wish we could see more of that, because science fiction based on legitimate science can be more effective at educating people about science without their even realizing it, instead of basically spreading facebook pseudoscience.
@@liam00 and in her review of the expanse it showed that she wasn’t a big follower of Sci fi. Not because she didn’t know how things worked, but because she likely hadn’t heard of those things before and it’s just background/unexplained in the tv series.
My favorite bit was the bandits chasing the kids around in the rockies. Mostly because, how in the absolute fuck did they know they'd need oxygen tanks? Also, in the moon pass after the one they needed o2 tanks to survive... they don't need them anymore? Why?
The Roche limit they stated sounds a lot like they did the calculation with ballpark numbers rather than more accurate numbers AND got their units mixed up. 9484 *miles* converted to kilometers is about 15263km. So it seems plausible someone did the roughly correct maths, and then another person assumed it was miles and converted it to kilometers even though the number they were given *was* kilometers. The Expanse made a similar error when talking about the velocity of an asteroid impact.
Yeah, its weird, they are within one order of magnitude here in precision. It would be nice if they were so accurate with other predictions. Thats good enough for me in a movie. But of course, they are way of in most things here!
“The moon, is not, hollow.” Dr Becky Smethurst, astrophysicist, author, TH-camr, Junior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. I bet you never expected to say that when you started this channel 🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for another great video, Dr. Becky. Slight correction on the 'gravity wave', though. You, of course, correctly describe gravitational waves, but gravity waves are a separate phenomenon. They are internal gravity waves with the restoring force being buoyancy, i.e., gravity. Resonant ones are known as g-modes. I have no idea how this fits into the movie, where it looks more like a gravitationally excited f-mode (surface wave)...
Concerning gravity wave, it’s a real term for waves on a surface of a liquid, like the ocean waves. It is distinct from gravitational waves that are waves of spacetime metric. The term “gravity waves” is rarely used though, as outside of the specific physics theory about them they are just referred as waves. Also if the water would fly upwards due to the gravity, so will everything else. Gravity affects everything equally, that’s the equivalence principle. And it means that the earth is inside moon’s Roche limit essentially. Which is nonsense.
Agreed. Adding to your points and a little off your topic, as well as digressing on gravitational waves…….for me, it’s a bit of a misnomer (gravitational waves). As we all know, they are waves that propagate through space-time itself, created by gravitational disturbances. So a more ‘whole’ or pure term could be ‘space-time waves’ ‘ or the ‘universe’s waves’ or something even more descriptive and better then my suggestions. We don’t call waves on the ocean ‘wind waves’. I think the technical term for any gravity effect might be title wave? I’m not sure on that. Interestingly and I thought Dr. Becky might touch on this, or maybe it was inferred?…one can see those title effects or gravity waves from 8:01 - 8:07. As the moon passes the rings and exerts its gravitational muscle on the rings themselves. So cool to visualize title effects.
@@alexpearson8481 *tidal wave, but we certainly do call waves on top of water "wind waves" as that is how they are typically generated. Verses a wake wave or a tsunami or any other number of phenomena. This isn't a common term, but if you want to discuss waves and their mechanics rigorously, you do use phrases such as "Wind waves are the wind-generated gravity waves."
Slightly nit-picking here: Gravity waves are actually a term in fluid dynamics, where a fluid moves under the influence of gravity in order to restore equilibrium. But I think they are abusing the recent medial attention on gravitational waves here in order to have it sound more impressive.
3:30 also, something hollow that size would collapse under it's own gravity moons and planets cannot possibly be hollow for the same reason they are round it would literally be physically impossible, even if someone magically create a hollow moonlike object it would still collapse back int oa solid sphere
Oh this is going to be so good! Please consider reviewing the original Andromeda Strain from the 70s, it's a great film with a sense that real scientists are doing real science (albeit with 70s tech).
I would love for you to do a reaction to '2010, The year we make contact'. It's a movie from 1984 and is the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a kid I've always loved that movie and I still do. Looking forward to it ! Cheers from Belgium and please keep doing these !!
@@TheJunmengo Personally, I actually prefer it to 2001, by FAR. IMO the acting is better, the story-telling is more engaging, and also ... I really like Roy Scheider. :D
Thanks for the reaction video! Personally I would like to see some reactions to some "harder" science fiction films from the 60s/70s like 2001 or Silent Running.
I would like to see more videos like this. Not because of movie analysis, .but observing becky's though process, gave me lot of useful insights how to thing about mass, gravity...
I did twitch a little with some of these plot points. That being said, I did love the movie and, (although I doubt it will happen), I’m looking forward to the hinted at sequel.
@@godsbeautifulflatearth the organization's existence, their accomplishments, or...? If you're trying to troll you're going to have to be more specific 😂
I was so excited to see that you reacted to this movie! I have been on a cheesy sci-fi kick recently and my wife keeps saying I lose IQ points every time I watch one. Maybe so, but at least now I can say I'm in good company! Thanks for doing these reaction vids they are fun.
Excellent show. I was looking for a new way to stay up to date on Astronomy. Looking forward to the next show. I wil recommend your show to my friends.
8:24 I love listening to experts in difficult fields. "What did they say the Roche limit was? We can actually work that out." In my ignorance I assume it's a conclusion some genius came up with but she just quickly calculates it.
Fun fact: Kurzgesagt has done a video on this exact subject (what happens if The Moon crashes into the Earth) and provides excellent scientific information for different phases of time (as The Moon starts to close in). Do check it out! Thanks Dr. Becky!
I really enjoy watching your expert analysis of these Sci-Fi movies Dr. Becky. I am surprised that they left out the well known fact that the internal structure of the Moon is made out of cheese! 🤣😂😉
Thank you for reviewing this silly disaster movie. The good thing is, that you taught me so much in this review. Yes, I would love if you ranked SiFi movies by their scientific accuracy.
hey Dr.Becky recently discovered your channel and love how you put realistic grasp on the world using phyisics. after watching this video of you reacting to moonfall I got a good one for you to watch. it's an early 2000 movie called K-Pax. about a alien from another world who inhabits a mans body and gets sent to a psychiatric ward. it stars Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey.
I watched this at the cinema w one of my friends and Idk if it’s because of my friend but I really enjoyed the film! The fact that i don’t know anything about physics probably played a big part in that too lol 🤣
I absolutely would watch you review more sci-fi films and explain them. I would really love if you did some episodes of The Expanse because of how purportedly scientifically accurate they are.
She already did: th-cam.com/video/O25-_eEdxaw/w-d-xo.html Too bad you couldn't be bothered to take 5 seconds to search for it yourself. It's much easier to ask her to do something she's already done. Smh.
As someone who loves science, I actually really enjoyed this movie; because to get the science so consistently and diametrically wrong the writers would need to have a fairly good grounding in it and be twisting it around for comedic effect. It's like how the physics in the Fast and Furious films gets progressively more ludicrous (or Ludacris if you prefer) with every instalment. It becomes a self-referential meta-joke.
I also thought that I will see high tide when the moon is above me. I was disappointed when I didn’t see than on my beach vacation. Then I read about it, and learned that the effect is not immediate, and the water needs time to move around, so it lags. The lag is probably worse when the moon is closer, and orbits faster.
This was a great video! one of my personal favourite science fiction films is Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" it's about the sun dying and a group of scientists traveling to the sun to release a payload in order to "restart it" I'm sure the science behind that is very dodgy but I think it'd be a great film to react to and see what they got right /wrong .
The crew going bananas on the cruise is pretty dodgy too. Like, we can't find people on the planet who don't suddenly lose their minds on this most important mission to save everyone?
About four days ago, on one of the satellite channels, I watched this movie by chance from its beginning to the end. It was really interesting, but as you said, and I agree with you, it lacks many facts; But this is the film industry that relies mainly on imagination to push viewers to either believe in it, or to beware of it and avoid it, or to study it and explain its content to others, or as you have the opportunity now to criticize it scientifically, and I thank you for this good effort.
I love your videos dr. Becky, especially those breakdowns but finally I caught you with a blunder;). Gravity waves are definitely a thing. They are often confused with gravitational waves but gravity waves are separate thing. Here is a definition from wiki "In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium.".
@@fvefve12 ok, I haven't seen this movie. The premise threw me off. But Becky suggested that there is no such thing as gravity waves. That's all I pointed out.
You've really hit on something here. I don't know if it would be more financially rewarding to have this a separate channel, or that is what you've done, but whatever, this is gold! lol
@ 16:30 ; I loved the white dwarf star you were discussing so much, I wanted to stitch a patch of it to my jacket, but then I thought about it more deeply . . . Why Sew Sirius ?!? 🤓😅
17:00 - If the Moon's mass was actually 38 times that of the sun, it would certainly explain why people are suddenly being pulled off the surface of the Earth towards the Moon.
Yep, would have had different, much larger problems long before then though 😂. Would also explain the lack of the moon being pulled apart once inside the Roche limit... however it doesn't explain the Earth not being pulled apart once inside the Moon's Roche limit.
Exactly. If I'm interpreting the TOV limit correctly, then an object 38 times the mass of the sun would easily collapse into a black hole. As a matter of fact, calculating the Roche limit for a 38 solar mass black hole, the Earth would've been shredded or spaghettified once it came within 1.17 million km of it. Or about 5 times the average distance to the Moon.
Yup, I went into this movie knowing I was going to have to turn off the portion of my brain that enjoys playing KSP in order to enjoy this movie. Definitely far more technobabble than actual science. And while I'm not "I've got to see that!" about you ranking other science fiction movies, I'd definitely be interested.
Love your enthusiam and getting frustrated when the physics or normal things are worng... Just love it. You should now be in pannel shows !!! Finally we have another Neil de Grasse Tyson. Instantly felt in love with your videos
I love this! You're awesome. Just pulling those formulae out of thin air and being right, it's amazing what you know. I mean, how many times have you actually calculated the mass of a white dwarf? So many that you knew the formula, I guess. Bang on!
Well it's easy to make it look that way when you can use editing to cover it up lol Just gonna say if she was as good as scientist as she claims she wouldn't be making TH-cam videos for a living but working in the field right?? lol
@@DeadlyDan Maybe she does both. Or maybe she's such an effective communicator that she's built a huge following and she can make more money teaching us what's going on than she could sitting in a lab disproving hypotheses. There are a million scientists sitting in labs doing science. Some of them do great science. There re precious few science communicators in the world with a talent for making fun and educational science videos to teach important or at least interesting ideas to the masses. I don't know where Sabine fits among those million scientists in labs, but she's absolutely one of the best of those precious few communicators.
A gravity wave that size would definitely cause a sharknado.
Greenlight this right now, whoever makes the Sharknado movies. It's time.
Lol
😂
Maybe it turns into the Tiger King.
theyr really missed a good chance there. they could have had a bunch of cats get sucked up out of a pet store or a nature reserve and made a "pussy-nado!". or a gatornado, a croconado, a people back, an insectnado, a octonado, a squidnado, etc... the possibilities were endless! what a boring and dull miss of a great chance to expand the "nado universe!". I feel so dissapointed!
I like how the gravity of the passing moon was enough to lift a large tree off the ground (probably around two to four tons), but not a person. Also, the moon managed to avoid destroying or disrupting any of the communication satellites, even allowing GPS to still work so that they could find the kids out in the middle of nowhere. Hollywood writers must be on the same intellectual level as habitual glue-sniffers.
@C. D. Johnson
you used the words ' on the same intellectual level as' when you didnt need to 🙂
@@YTANDY100 I gave them the benefit of the doubt that intellect was involved. But in truth, we know it was either write that movie or reconsider becoming s*x workers.
I don't mean to sound argumanitive for no reason but I've seen a lot of flat Earthers misuse this concept so I figure I'll clear something up. Either the gravity is enough to lift objects or it's not. There's no such thing as strong enough to lift a tree but not a child, nor only strong enough to lift a child but not a tree etc. It's gravity, gravity lifts thing with more mass with greater overall force and at the same acceleration. Don't get into the territory of "How come gravity is apparently strong enough to hold in the oceans but not a hydrogen molecule?" lol.
@@bornkinggamer3347 Not sure where the word "strong" entered the picture, but I'm pretty sure a gradient of gravity is typically involved. I'm talking about the scene in which one adult is stuck under the tree, another is trying to lift it, and although the gravity is enough to lighten the tree enough for a small woman to lift it, the two people and everything else around them remain firmly on the ground. Pretty sure all three objects should have been lighter, tree and people. At the very least, the woman should have been lifted off of the ground before the tree.
huh, so hermitcraft season 8 did the moon's approach better than a high budget film...
The most difficult thing to believe was how quickly NASA got Endeavour out of a museum and flight ready
And just made every crew member on any given lauch completely disposable
😂😂😂
Actually not for me.
I mean yeah, why not roll out Buran whilst we are at it...
becky didnt talk about the elefant in the room. a white dorf is in fact a compresed star with a mass billions time greater of Earth . in reality if Earth came so close to a white dorf as the moon is to Earth than it will orbit the white dorf reaching relativistic speeds and transform into a ring of dust instantly.
A seven year old playing with Buzz Lightyear dolls can think up more intelligent stories than Roland Emmerich.
Thanks for reacting to Moonfall. Saw it yesterday and although I liked it as a disaster movie, my mind was going in overdrive all the time. "This is not true", "this would'nt happen that way", "that's bs" and so on and so on. Making these movies cost many millions of dollars; why don't they hire a professor or an astrophysicist like you to have a look at the script first 😂
It's *SEXIST!!!* to say BS when she cows also go poopoo.
Probably because that script would be binned within half a second from someone actually reading it ;)
Who gives a fuck it's a fucking movie lol ...
Script writers don't like interference
Suspension of disbelief - do that enough times so that the viewers don't realise what they are buying in to, and you get exactly the effect that Don't Look Up or Idiocracy portray so well - a world of credulous idiots.
13:18 Your disbelief at the mention of the white dwarf was hilarious.
What I love about the white dwarf insode the moon part is the fact that you used Math to point out stupidity, and that's my favourite thing in the world.
However, she accidentally put the formula the wrong way around on screen.... it should be (Rsb/Rmoon)^3... not (Rmoon/Rsb)^3 ;-)
but to fit the movie could it be a white dwarf that came from a tiny sun.
@@ocaraevil well, there is also a lower limit on the mass of a sun, as below that, fusion cannot take place, so it stays as a brown dwarf, and doesn't turn into a white dwarf. Also, with smaller stars where fusion does occur; red dwarfs, they are actually super stable, so their main sequence lasts for 10s of billions of years, so no white dwarfs created from red dwarfs really exist yet in the universe, so it is basically impossible for the white dwarf shown could be from a tiny sun.
hope this helps!
@@ocaraevil Even that "tiny sun" would have the mass of a thousand Earths. That means if the moon hid that mass inside, Earth would be orbiting the moon... Not to mention that fact that it would probably have thrown Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn out of the solar system.
becky didnt talk about the elefant in the room. a white dorf is in fact a compresed star with a mass billions time greater of Earth . in reality if Earth came so close to a white dorf as the moon is to Earth than it will orbit the white dorf reaching relativistic speeds and transform into a ring of dust instantly.
Thank you for watching this so I didn't have to. The title of this one made me particularly sad because there was a 1998 novel called "Moonfall" which was both very good and was also committed to realistic physics. In this one an object from outside the solar system hit the moon hard enough to shatter it. Most of the debris stays safely in orbit but one dangerously large rock is going to impact and smart people do heroic things to save the earth. Would have made a great movie. Ah well.
If I remember right, there were signs that the object might have been an RKKV from what I remember. Suspicious outgassing, and signs of refined metals if I recall correctly. Granted, the sheer energy liberated from exceeding the gravitational binding energy would have sterlized the planet from the absurd shine from the event, but it was pretty good.
i would recommend to watch it if you can for free its kind of fun
even as bad as it is
Basically Armageddon
It's fun when you know what to expect
@@aravindkm2012 OurMoongeddon...?
Please keep uploading videos,I understand you are unbelievably busy with your work but your videos are so easy to watch and you get rid of all the misinformation about physics and space that is out there and your reaction videos are hilarious,keep up the good and important work for amateurs like myself and everyone else 👍👌
I could actually smell the smoke coming out of your ears when the guy said 'gravity wave'.
Would love to see you rank sci-fi films by scientific accuracy. I would also be interested in how much you enjoyed each of the films. Would be interesting to see if you prefer the more accurate films over the less accurate films.
I was thinking something similar. The moon falling towards the earth is more inspired by nightmares than science... I've had crazy dreams like that. Maybe that is not suprising after growing up in the 1980s when the year 2000 sounded like the end of the world and wondering how the world might end if not at the turn of the millennium maybe some other time within the lifetime of my generation?!! So why wonder what to do when I grow up if the world might end before I get to 30 - or 40 - now it looks like I might make it to old age after all, so the longer I can stay on Earth the more amazing scientific discoveries and space industry progress I'll hear about. Maybe people will make it to Mars one day?! I'm still skeptical about that but would be impressed enough if they make it back to the Moon.
I don't mind watching reviews and reactions on TH-cam before or without seeing the films - if gives me a better idea of whether or not they are worth watching.
See Dr Becky’s analysis of The Expanse for great examples how how she applies good objective review on the “truth” behind some popular science fiction.
star wars: 0%
Contact
You can guess what scientist prefers XD
The funny thing is, that I understood every word you said. And I am a hairdresser, not an astrophysicist. So come on Emmerich. It is not that hard to do a fun movie with a little bit of accuracy 🙄
Don't disparage hairdressers! They gain the most versatile knowledge imaginable on a daily basis, don't they?
So, since Roland Emmerich was born in Stuttgart, let me give you some kind of explanation. In Germany, there's this saying, "Was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht." Which literally means, "What doesn't fit will be made to fit." I guess he followed that premise while making the movie.
@@Nitidus Yea, i assumed that was the case too. He probably knows that his movie's science is shit but made it anyway cuz the premise was movie-worthy.
As a hairdresser you're probably vastly more intelligent than most people working on Hollywood blockbusters :D Emmerich is notorious for complete crap, and as a person coming from the same country I apologize. But then again, he fits well into Hollywood.
The funnier thing is that when Emmerich made a passion project it was about an anonymous person writing as Shakespeare in Elizabethan times.
Which just goes to show that for all the c**p he puts out he is probably crying himself to sleep that he has to shovel this out just to get a little studio support on the things he actually wants to work on.
Roland Emmerich is basically Jim Henson - if Henson had made disaster films instead of Muppets content.
Henson had to make a never ending amount of muppets stuff before he got support to make Dark Crystal - albeit something tells me he had more fun than Emmerich doing his day job.
Hi Dr. Becky,
watching your videos and the whole science community, after losing my Job i've decided to go back to college and then Uni to study Astrophysics I know it's not going to be easy and going to take a good 4-5 years to do and at 37 is scary but i'm enjoy looking at the stars and trying to come up with idea's and being a Programmer from 2007 I just want to thank you for all your video's and helping me understand what your day to day work life is like and how much you enjoy it even if it's stressful.
May I suggest you study some English first. 😂
Yes, would like to see a ranking video for realistic to unrealistic. I really enjoy your reaction videos. Also like when you break down scientific papers for people who are not astrophysicist.
i just found your channel about a month ago. You are incredible and the most "down to earth" astrophysicist on social media. Keep up all the great work!
Roland Emmerich’s team: how much science do you want in your new movie sir?
Roland Emmerich: No
I remember getting verbally ripped into when I asked a British film professor about "The Day After Tomorrow." He kept complaining about how none of it was realistic at all.
It's science fiction. Roland doesn't care if it's real. 😂
I loved the excitement behind Becky's voice when she explained how the Earth could get rings like Saturn 🤭
Her enthusiasm on most topics tends to be infectious. She's definitely on my top 10 list of people to watch for astronomy news.
@6:10 "Can someone tell me what the hell I'm lookin' at?" "One of those bloody awful Roland Emmerich disaster movies, mate."
A line delivered by the director of NASA no less
Please, react to "Interstellar (2014)" and "Sunshine (2007)". Would love to see your take on those films. (IMO both much better than moonfall)
I love both of those movies. Though Interstellar is my favorite.
Same here I love Interstellar , yet even i, who used to look through a telescope from aged 7 but in no way educated in astrophysics , Found some of the facts a bit stretchy... But I loved it and wish I could travel through a wormhole like Coop.🙂
Interstellar is the greatest sci-fi movie and the Expanse is the greatest sci-fi series.
@@prodPavka Agreed. Most sci-fi has too much "fi" and not enough "sci", but The Expanse hits the perfect balance.
Would love to see you react to Sunshine(2007). Michelle Yeoh and Cillian Murphy are excellent. From an interested layman's perspective I feel like their solution to the problem of the film is absurd, but the parts about how they travel to get to solve the problem are less absurd? I may be totally off base and they might be equally absurd though. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Your look in the first 10 seconds is exactly how I was. Glad to know I’m not the only one. Great video.
Same here. That film sort of felt like an unholy hybrid of Chinese and Musk propaganda in an extremely fantasy scifi skin. That said it is a pretty cool premise/setting so at least that was pretty neat.
Watching a sci-fi movie with Dr.Becky would be both incredibly fun and frustrating at the same time.
watching sci-fi movies is already frustrating and i am not even a person from STEM. adding Becky to the mix could only improve the experience.
Watching any Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich movie is just frustrating, not fun, regardless of company.
Nah, it would be a total blast, cuz she seems to have to pause and complain at the same places I do 😂
@@giin97 you know, this would be a great drinking game - have a shot each time anyone notices some obvious science nonsense. We all would be so wasted like 40 minutes in
There's a principle in literature that you don't make a [insert a profession here] to watch/see a movie, theater/stage play about [insert again that same profession] =P. It's called the "You don't go with Hercule Poirot to a crime mystery stage play" principle... =P
I feel like more youtubers have reacted to this movie then people who have actually watched it. Loved your review especially when you went for the calculator.
don't you have to watch it to react to it?
THAN. FFS.
Yeah, and she always had the equations memorized. Even when she looked them, she already had gotten them right. She rocks.
Reading the plot, watching reviews, and seeing these clips of absolute nonsense, science babble is enough to form a justifiable wrenching aversion to it and have reason to not watch it.
Space Junk
@@kbjerke thank you! Drives me to drink when natural born English-speaking people get very, very simple homonyms very, very wrong. 😑
"They've harnessed the building blocks of the universe!" is now my favourite thing that's ever been said with a Lancashire accent.
11:14 You said it yourself. Gravity wave versus gravitational wave. Waves in the sea are really called gravity waves because guess what their restoring force is? Gravity.
Its so funny seeing Becky laugh at some points in the movie which makes me think that when a layman like myself watches this movie, we would be like 'What a nice apocalyptic sci-fi movie!' while at the same time scientists like Becky are like 'This is the most hilarious non sensical comedy since hitchhikers guide to the galaxy!' 🤣😂 This makes me want to see more movie reactions from her and how she breaks them down. Its awesome! Keep it up!
No science was harmed in the making of this movie ,
All of it was .
Oh man, there is so much that is awesome about Dr. Becky, but having her totally crack up when the character states that the moon is hollow is freaking wonderful!
I don't know how much real arm-twisting it took for you to make this video, but I'm glad you gave in. :)
But also... Could a structure as large as the moon actually be hollow? How thick would the crust need to be to support the gravitational force? Would there be enough gravitational force to keep it as a sphere, or would it just fall apart?
A Dyson Sphere, watch the movie: the moon is a heretofore unbeknownst artificial object, artefact of an advanced civilisation AI. It has been tasked with saving the civilisation, Man, from a rogue self-aware AI update with serious QA issues. Thus the moon we knew is actually a vessel housing the AI and its facilities, a large construct that has attracted dust and rock to skin its surface for 4B years. That's the story premise that got its production budget. Nobody had to fact check the premise, they wuz making a movie, everyone knows sci-fi is bs etc etc just concentrate on teh story arc and good cgi.
As for craters, I have no idea, it's simply not my job to answer ask the film writers.
Thank you Dr. Becky for sitting through this with us. I would love to see a list of sci fi films ranked for accuracy. I think many scientifically informed laymen watch things like this, know they are wrong, but aren't sure entirely how. Thank you for helping to inform us about movies and actually astronomy.🙂
As a point of note, even the least massive white dwarf (10% M solar), regardless of if it fits (in the moon), would be so massive that the Earth would revolve around it (the moon in this movie), instead of the normal moon around Earth.
In the first second, the face pretty much says it all.
We can do with a lot fewer "the audience is stupid" movies.
Someone forgot to tell Roland Emmerich that disaster movies are supposed to be about disasters, not be disasters themselves.
I love when physicists react to these types of movies. They always seem to have conniptions lol!
Movies aren't made for the experts, they're made for move goers...the experts never seem to get that.
But it would be so easy to fix the dialogue little bit to make it little less freaking dumb! It wouldn't take anything from the non-expert watchers, and would potentially add enough verisimilitude to make it watchable. Just contact at least ONE professional who knows about the real physics in the movie's premise, before finishing the script, please. It doesn't have to be completely realistic, just... somewhat believable. (Not directed at this movie alone)
@@Imupinta Granted this was an egregiously terrible movie, but I've seen other of these ''experts analyze'' videos and they just don't get it. Most of the nit picking goes over the vast movie goers head and in many(most) and with reviewer, they haven't seen the whole movie, which is what the typical movie goer is there for. There isn't a movie made that can't be nit picked in some way or another. When you go to a movie the first thing required is suspension of belief.
@@rickden8362 I don't think these nitpicky videos are for the regular movie goer either :p
@@Imupinta You get the feeling the experts think their opinion should be.
I have recently been on a binge watching streak with your videos lol A movie suggestion I have is a bit older and not as "flashy" as a lot of sci-fi but getting your take on Apollo 13 would be fun to watch. It's one of my favorite movies as I was growing up.
You know a film's bad when Armageddon is your scientific palette cleanser.
When I made the mistake of seeing the movie "2012", my reaction was that the UN and every government on Earth needed to pass a law to stop Roland Emmerich from ever making another movie.
Uwe Boll holds that particular distinction for moviemaking in general.
@@ragingsithmaster Oh that name is a blast from the past haha! Didn't he get banned from using some tax loophole or something in Germany that was like his only way to finance those horrid movies?
@@olencone4005 I just remember being a fan of the mindless guilty pleasure fun of the Bloodrayne video games. Cheesy as it was, a movie adaptation deserved far better than HIM. And when he was prevented from making any more atrocities, he basically said it was because we were too dumb to grasp his brilliance.
That's one of my favorites!
2012 is great cheesy fun
My wife and I had so many laughs. The biggest were when the moon seemed to have more mass than Earth, since the moon's gravity could just rip objects right off of Earth.
Well they do make it clear that the moon's gravity field was artificial. The effects shown are still ridiculously inconsistent and unrealistic but they do at least give an explanation for the strength.
But not for the effects... Everything in the same gravitational field region falls in the same direction. Why would a child be attracted to the moon but not and adult, and all the free objects, cars, soil...
Erm... it couldn't though unless Moon's gravity was so very much more intense than Earth's that it would actually rip Earth apart, if I remember correctly.
I did say it was unrealistic and inconsistent. The only credit I gave was that the movie didn't pretend the moon's gravity was that strong normally. Everything past that they still completely screwed up. Like the space X fuel depot somehow still being in orbit by that point.
That is especially problematic, when you remember that they said the moon was hollow earlier! How did it get all that mass then?
When I watched this movie, Dr. Becky was the first person that I thought of on how frustrated you would be about all the inaccuracies.. great video btw!
Dr. Becky, you are sooo cute reacting to this! You reminded me of me watching a military movie, I sit there and tear it apart, especially if it's a movie about the Marines!
Your face is priceless on some of these reactions! Great video!
I love that you did the math. That was delightful.
Someone had to do … and it clearly wasn't *anyone* involved in the making of that movie. :-/
I'd like to see a reaction video about the movie "the core". It has quite a bit of over the top stuff, but probably also a lot of scientific concepts to break down
Yes, I second that.
I think The Core is another silly movie but I would also like to see your reaction to it 😃
I want that craft!
There is such a thing as a gravity wave. It's a wave at the surface of a liquid where the return force is more from gravity than from surface tension.
Haha yes. And a meta gravity wave is one close enough to a massive body merger to have the distortion from a gravitational wave create a gravity wave.
True. The other kind of wave are elastic waves where the compressional, and shear (solids only) elasticity is the force that propagates the wave.
Does it pull you into space though?
After a week of stress at work arguing with subcontractors... moonfall was what I needed and rather entertaining...so 👍
Love that you straight off went and found the equations and worked it out. This is why I'd have loved you to teach me.
Dr Becky The reactions are better then the bloopers Love it :D
@@kbjerke Please be polite when providing feedback. Thank you!
11:26 Actually while a gravitational wave is definitely not what that "gravity wave" is but in fluid dynamics, there is a term named "Gravity wave" it means a wave which is influenced by gravity to restore equilibrium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
I found this also rather confusing at first but i guess it still makes sense
I noticed the same. Radiation of General Relativity is named as "Gravitational Wave" exactly /because/ the Term 'Gravity Wave' already was taken by fluid dynamics.
I just read the wikipedia article. Calling it a "gravity wave" wouldn't be useful in the context of the movie. It would be a tidal wave or a tsunami.
Plus if it was a tidal surge, I don't think that would really fit with the definition of "gravity wave" given by Wikipedia, which describes most waves we regularly see on Earth.
@@atk05003 The article considers anything a gravity wave as long as gravity is the main driving force to recreate equilibrium again. A tsunami can be considered a gravity wave if you consider that the local water where the tsunami "emerged" was in equilibrium. A tidal wave is more complicated to name a gravity wave but even here the force of gravity is trying to restore equilibrium. Its just not the "let it be non-moving water" equilibrium. So could name it gravity wave.
Eitherway the term exists and semantics are annoying.
@@derdotte I agree the term may apply, but it's not useful in the context, because it applies to too many types of waves. If the goal was to instill a sense of urgency, then "big wave" or "tsunami" would have worked better. If the goal was to point out that the moon's gravity was causing it, "tidal wave" or "tidal surge" would have been more informative.
Before I even start watching this, I can tell by Dr Becky's look of disdain/incredulity that it's going to be hilarious 😂
Edit: I was right. This was comedy gold. The fact you did the calculations was just perfect and just one of the many reasons I adore you! 😂 I would love to see your thoughts on the Empire's space-jumping ships (amongst other things) in Apple TV's adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation. Plus, that series has Lee Pace, which for me, is simply absolute viewing pleasure. 😉
Oh 🤔😔. I don't have apple. I wish I could watch that. Foundation was amazing.
I feel like my life is missing something now.
@@mirzamay Well, I'll say it's only based loosely on the books, but I very much enjoyed it for what it was. The Empire arc was great to watch. I don't have Apple tv either so I just signed up for the 7 day free trial and watched it that way. 😊
Your reviews are great. Thank you Dr. Becky!
Wish I had seen this review before I watched this movie two days ago. I like the idea of ranking sift movie based on their scientific accuracy. I appreciate all of your explanations.
My family keep telling me it's a film when I highlight the physics.
The physics do become a bit irrelevant when the race involved is a couple of billion year old though, and you know, the moon is an ark and all that artificial stuff created by a race that is rather old.
It's like Star Wars, you don't sit down and watch it to look at the physics.
The Expanse is my favorite space series. It stretches and sometimes breaks with known laws of physics but it's mostly real doable future science, based on our current knowledge.
Agree 100%, the only "problem" for me is that The Expanse "ruined" my experience watching "traditional" Sci Fi movies and TV shows sets in space, since it proves that great Sci Fi can be done without trashing the laws of physics.
She has done a vid on that, it seems to be correct mainly. The genre name of the film's does give it away that they aren't necessarily going to be perfect.
@@omargj1 That was one of the wins for Interstellar also -- in fact, Kip Thorne even published a book about the physics of Interstellar, and explained where Chris Nolan deviated from science for the sake of the movie... and it was quite surprising how little he did.
And at the same time funded some genuine scientific research while making the movie. Double Negative didn't invent the visualization of Gargantua, a bunch of astrophysicists did. The artists at DNeg prettied up their model.
I wish we could see more of that, because science fiction based on legitimate science can be more effective at educating people about science without their even realizing it, instead of basically spreading facebook pseudoscience.
@@RakeshMalikWhiteCrane I love Interstellar, my favorite scifi movie of the 2010s with Blade Runner 2049 and Inception.
@@liam00 and in her review of the expanse it showed that she wasn’t a big follower of Sci fi. Not because she didn’t know how things worked, but because she likely hadn’t heard of those things before and it’s just background/unexplained in the tv series.
Dr Becky!!!! I was hoping you would react to this. Yay! Thank you for this, and all you do! Keep it up.
My favorite bit was the bandits chasing the kids around in the rockies. Mostly because, how in the absolute fuck did they know they'd need oxygen tanks? Also, in the moon pass after the one they needed o2 tanks to survive... they don't need them anymore? Why?
This was so fun. Loved the way your body language showed you knew what you'd be in for.
The Roche limit they stated sounds a lot like they did the calculation with ballpark numbers rather than more accurate numbers AND got their units mixed up. 9484 *miles* converted to kilometers is about 15263km. So it seems plausible someone did the roughly correct maths, and then another person assumed it was miles and converted it to kilometers even though the number they were given *was* kilometers.
The Expanse made a similar error when talking about the velocity of an asteroid impact.
Yeah, its weird, they are within one order of magnitude here in precision. It would be nice if they were so accurate with other predictions. Thats good enough for me in a movie. But of course, they are way of in most things here!
If I remember correctly a mix-up between metric and imperial happened in real life and caused a multi-million dollar probe to crash!
Yep! Poor communication lead to incorrect unit conversion and a probe smacking into Mars really, REALLY fast. 😬
“The moon, is not, hollow.”
Dr Becky Smethurst, astrophysicist, author, TH-camr, Junior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.
I bet you never expected to say that when you started this channel 🤣🤣🤣
Obviously it isn’t hollow, that would be dumb…cause it is actually made of cheese and the core is filled with melted cheese.
"Save the cheerleader, save the world!" Long time since I heard that, thank you
That was a surprising reference! That I also didn't hear for a long time...! XD
Dr. Becky rocks!!
Thanks for another great video, Dr. Becky.
Slight correction on the 'gravity wave', though. You, of course, correctly describe gravitational waves, but gravity waves are a separate phenomenon. They are internal gravity waves with the restoring force being buoyancy, i.e., gravity. Resonant ones are known as g-modes. I have no idea how this fits into the movie, where it looks more like a gravitationally excited f-mode (surface wave)...
Concerning gravity wave, it’s a real term for waves on a surface of a liquid, like the ocean waves. It is distinct from gravitational waves that are waves of spacetime metric. The term “gravity waves” is rarely used though, as outside of the specific physics theory about them they are just referred as waves.
Also if the water would fly upwards due to the gravity, so will everything else. Gravity affects everything equally, that’s the equivalence principle. And it means that the earth is inside moon’s Roche limit essentially. Which is nonsense.
Finally, someone gets it.
interesting, thank you! i'm glad it is not used much though, it feels like calling an airplane landing "gravity landing"
Agreed. Adding to your points and a little off your topic, as well as digressing on gravitational waves…….for me, it’s a bit of a misnomer (gravitational waves). As we all know, they are waves that propagate through space-time itself, created by gravitational disturbances. So a more ‘whole’ or pure term could be ‘space-time waves’ ‘ or the ‘universe’s waves’ or something even more descriptive and better then my suggestions.
We don’t call waves on the ocean ‘wind waves’. I think the technical term for any gravity effect might be title wave? I’m not sure on that.
Interestingly and I thought Dr. Becky might touch on this, or maybe it was inferred?…one can see those title effects or gravity waves from 8:01 - 8:07. As the moon passes the rings and exerts its gravitational muscle on the rings themselves. So cool to visualize title effects.
@@MaBurro2112canal Very similar, yes.
@@alexpearson8481 *tidal wave, but we certainly do call waves on top of water "wind waves" as that is how they are typically generated. Verses a wake wave or a tsunami or any other number of phenomena. This isn't a common term, but if you want to discuss waves and their mechanics rigorously, you do use phrases such as "Wind waves are the wind-generated gravity waves."
This video is approximately 38.77x more interesting and enjoyable than the actual movie.
But that's above the chandrasekhar limit and thus impossible?!
@@TimoRutanen Not if you take into account that Hollywood is a black hole that sucks all logic and scientific accuracy out of disaster movies.😉😂
Slightly nit-picking here:
Gravity waves are actually a term in fluid dynamics, where a fluid moves under the influence of gravity in order to restore equilibrium. But I think they are abusing the recent medial attention on gravitational waves here in order to have it sound more impressive.
Yeah, I would guess they didn't happen to know fluid dynamics but no other science. 🤔
I really enjoy dr Becky's analysis!!!
3:30
also, something hollow that size would collapse under it's own gravity
moons and planets cannot possibly be hollow for the same reason they are round
it would literally be physically impossible, even if someone magically create a hollow moonlike object it would still collapse back int oa solid sphere
Oh this is going to be so good!
Please consider reviewing the original Andromeda Strain from the 70s, it's a great film with a sense that real scientists are doing real science (albeit with 70s tech).
I agree, good movie. However, Dr. Becky might need some help from a virologist.
I would love for you to do a reaction to '2010, The year we make contact'. It's a movie from 1984 and is the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a kid I've always loved that movie and I still do. Looking forward to it ! Cheers from Belgium and please keep doing these !!
Is not as good as original but is fairly good IMO
have a beautiful message
I liked it very much. HAL's performance was great.
"Pan Am: Where the sky's no longer the limit."
@@TheJunmengo Personally, I actually prefer it to 2001, by FAR. IMO the acting is better, the story-telling is more engaging, and also ... I really like Roy Scheider. :D
Thanks for the reaction video!
Personally I would like to see some reactions to some "harder" science fiction films from the 60s/70s like 2001 or Silent Running.
what about when the moon rang like a Bell
I would like to see more videos like this. Not because of movie analysis, .but observing becky's though process, gave me lot of useful insights how to thing about mass, gravity...
I did twitch a little with some of these plot points. That being said, I did love the movie and, (although I doubt it will happen), I’m looking forward to the hinted at sequel.
I found moonfall hilariously ridiculous as well lol. Please do rank scifi movies by science accuracy I'd love to see that!
*It's more believable than NASA.*
@@godsbeautifulflatearth the organization's existence, their accomplishments, or...? If you're trying to troll you're going to have to be more specific 😂
I LOVED this! The movie was so silly and I enjoyed hearing just how silly it was from you. So yes! More please!
I was so excited to see that you reacted to this movie! I have been on a cheesy sci-fi kick recently and my wife keeps saying I lose IQ points every time I watch one. Maybe so, but at least now I can say I'm in good company! Thanks for doing these reaction vids they are fun.
U are so unbelively nice person, I’ve never seen such a nice person
Excellent show. I was looking for a new way to stay up to date on Astronomy. Looking forward to the next show. I wil recommend your show to my friends.
8:24 I love listening to experts in difficult fields. "What did they say the Roche limit was? We can actually work that out." In my ignorance I assume it's a conclusion some genius came up with but she just quickly calculates it.
😅jj
😅
😅
😅
what makes you think Dr. Becky is not a genius?
Poor Dr. Becky. Why put yourself through this? Oh yes, our entertainment :-) thanks!
Never saw the film when it came out, seems I didn't miss anything worthwhile - On the other hand Dr Becky's review is brilliant
The movie was so fun to watch, 😂surprisingly time well spent!
Fun fact: Kurzgesagt has done a video on this exact subject (what happens if The Moon crashes into the Earth) and provides excellent scientific information for different phases of time (as The Moon starts to close in). Do check it out! Thanks Dr. Becky!
17:55 she was like noooo not the Hubble 😭😭🤣🤣
I really enjoy watching your expert analysis of these Sci-Fi movies Dr. Becky. I am surprised that they left out the well known fact that the internal structure of the Moon is made out of cheese! 🤣😂😉
Thank you for reviewing this silly disaster movie. The good thing is, that you taught me so much in this review. Yes, I would love if you ranked SiFi movies by their scientific accuracy.
hey Dr.Becky recently discovered your channel and love how you put realistic grasp on the world using phyisics. after watching this video of you reacting to moonfall I got a good one for you to watch. it's an early 2000 movie called K-Pax. about a alien from another world who inhabits a mans body and gets sent to a psychiatric ward. it stars Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey.
K-pax is a hidden gem of a movie. A low-key but fascinating premise.
I was patiently waiting for you to do moonfall!!!!!
Oh I also love that the auto subtitles just called it the Paly Exclusion Principle. That's so much more friendly.
I watched this at the cinema w one of my friends and Idk if it’s because of my friend but I really enjoyed the film! The fact that i don’t know anything about physics probably played a big part in that too lol 🤣
I love physics and have studied it in university I still enjoyed. I looked at it from a lens of sci-fi with almost no sci.
I absolutely would watch you review more sci-fi films and explain them. I would really love if you did some episodes of The Expanse because of how purportedly scientifically accurate they are.
She already did: th-cam.com/video/O25-_eEdxaw/w-d-xo.html
Too bad you couldn't be bothered to take 5 seconds to search for it yourself. It's much easier to ask her to do something she's already done. Smh.
As someone who loves science, I actually really enjoyed this movie; because to get the science so consistently and diametrically wrong the writers would need to have a fairly good grounding in it and be twisting it around for comedic effect. It's like how the physics in the Fast and Furious films gets progressively more ludicrous (or Ludacris if you prefer) with every instalment. It becomes a self-referential meta-joke.
The fun that the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" has with science, and also philosophy and mathematics is really good too.
@@franklittle8124 42
I didn't think of it that way... thanks for that perspective!😅
@@desip66 DON'T PANIC
@@stonedsasquatch thanks, I was starting to
I also thought that I will see high tide when the moon is above me. I was disappointed when I didn’t see than on my beach vacation.
Then I read about it, and learned that the effect is not immediate, and the water needs time to move around, so it lags.
The lag is probably worse when the moon is closer, and orbits faster.
This was a great video!
one of my personal favourite science fiction films is Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" it's about the sun dying and a group of scientists traveling to the sun to release a payload in order to "restart it" I'm sure the science behind that is very dodgy but I think it'd be a great film to react to and see what they got right /wrong .
The crew going bananas on the cruise is pretty dodgy too. Like, we can't find people on the planet who don't suddenly lose their minds on this most important mission to save everyone?
Oh Dr Becky you should have asked us first.... It's Roland Emerick nothing is backed up by fact or science..... or common sense
About four days ago, on one of the satellite channels, I watched this movie by chance from its beginning to the end. It was really interesting, but as you said, and I agree with you, it lacks many facts; But this is the film industry that relies mainly on imagination to push viewers to either believe in it, or to beware of it and avoid it, or to study it and explain its content to others, or as you have the opportunity now to criticize it scientifically, and I thank you for this good effort.
There's inspired imagination, and then there's retarded imagination. Far too often the latter is preferred.
"lacks many facts" is way way too generous. The film is completely nonsense from start to end. It's even more preposterous than The Core somehow.
I love your videos dr. Becky, especially those breakdowns but finally I caught you with a blunder;). Gravity waves are definitely a thing. They are often confused with gravitational waves but gravity waves are separate thing. Here is a definition from wiki "In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium.".
@@fvefve12 ok, I haven't seen this movie. The premise threw me off. But Becky suggested that there is no such thing as gravity waves. That's all I pointed out.
16:47 another blunder, wrong rearrangement
You've really hit on something here. I don't know if it would be more financially rewarding to have this a separate channel, or that is what you've done, but whatever, this is gold! lol
@ 16:30 ; I loved the white dwarf star you were discussing so much, I wanted to stitch a patch of it to my jacket, but then I thought about it more deeply . . .
Why Sew Sirius ?!? 🤓😅
17:00 - If the Moon's mass was actually 38 times that of the sun, it would certainly explain why people are suddenly being pulled off the surface of the Earth towards the Moon.
Yep, would have had different, much larger problems long before then though 😂.
Would also explain the lack of the moon being pulled apart once inside the Roche limit... however it doesn't explain the Earth not being pulled apart once inside the Moon's Roche limit.
Exactly. If I'm interpreting the TOV limit correctly, then an object 38 times the mass of the sun would easily collapse into a black hole.
As a matter of fact, calculating the Roche limit for a 38 solar mass black hole, the Earth would've been shredded or spaghettified once it came within 1.17 million km of it. Or about 5 times the average distance to the Moon.
If the moon's mass was 38 times that of the sun, why is the ENTIRE EARTH not being pulled directly into the moon like a freaking rocket?
Yup, I went into this movie knowing I was going to have to turn off the portion of my brain that enjoys playing KSP in order to enjoy this movie. Definitely far more technobabble than actual science.
And while I'm not "I've got to see that!" about you ranking other science fiction movies, I'd definitely be interested.
It’s funny I just watched this movie a few weeks ago!!
Love your enthusiam and getting frustrated when the physics or normal things are worng... Just love it. You should now be in pannel shows !!! Finally we have another Neil de Grasse Tyson. Instantly felt in love with your videos
I love this! You're awesome. Just pulling those formulae out of thin air and being right, it's amazing what you know. I mean, how many times have you actually calculated the mass of a white dwarf? So many that you knew the formula, I guess. Bang on!
I think she looked up the formula but it impresses me how easily she applies it and manages to explain what the results mean to us.
Well it's easy to make it look that way when you can use editing to cover it up lol Just gonna say if she was as good as scientist as she claims she wouldn't be making TH-cam videos for a living but working in the field right?? lol
@@DeadlyDan Maybe she does both.
Or maybe she's such an effective communicator that she's built a huge following and she can make more money teaching us what's going on than she could sitting in a lab disproving hypotheses.
There are a million scientists sitting in labs doing science. Some of them do great science.
There re precious few science communicators in the world with a talent for making fun and educational science videos to teach important or at least interesting ideas to the masses.
I don't know where Sabine fits among those million scientists in labs, but she's absolutely one of the best of those precious few communicators.