Astronomy in Movies: Don't Look Up
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- In this video, I react to Netflix's latest disaster flick. What did they get right and what did they get wrong?
If you want to see more of the Chelyabinsk meteor: the RUclips video is here: • Russian Meteor 15-02-2...
I will link my full review when it is up.
The rich folks getting eaten by the aliens at the end was my favorite part.
The book "Lucifer's Hammer" just how correct were the authors?
33:30 - It's much worse than that, they totally knew it was a horrible idea for fuel to contain lead, and simply said F it.
“Very realistic stupidity.” 😂
Strange how asteroids always hit new york or san diego in Hollywood movies while they always hit Russia in reality
Biggest country on this planet!
Right? Or they drop into the ocean. : )
No, it hits Paris as in the movie. Jack O'Neill said so.
@@wrightmf that's Col O'Neill with two Ls.
@@Persian-Immortal Russia to earth is what Jupiter is to solar system - OfCourse this was on a lighter note
I say the depiction of the billionaire in the movie is a parody which sadly is not too far away from real life tech billionaires. These people are LITERALLY worshiped and treated like genious snd saviors simply because they are very rich with a huge ego to match. He represents people like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, these egomaniacs that are treated as genious but in reality they are super-egotistical borderline sociopaths with a following, where if one were to scrutonate their business savviness, wisdom and personality they would all be confined to the loony bin or in jail for fraud. Modern society, especially hypercapitalist societied like in the USA, UK and russia, worship capitalist pirates who steal, con and lie yet are treated as heros to be worshiped.
Exactly! When this guy smelled money, his bunch of yes-men would never get in his way. And he obviously is a big donor to the president. The movie was done before Covid, but it was prescient in predicting that people wouldn't believe in something right in front of their faces.
Penn State graduate here! Big of you to admit Michigan State can do the astronomy! We are...! :D
My favorite Sci-Fi movie remains to be Contact. For me, the best sci-fi is about humanity, about how humanity would react when the situation is pushed to the extreme of imagination. Don't Look Up succeeded in that but focuses way too much on the bad, I know it's satirical but it's a bit heavy-handed. Still, it chills my bones thinking even tho it's stupid, it's also completely plausible.
Kudos on meshing in Firefly's "you can't take the sky from me" to the narrative :)
Browncoat confirmed
The Chixilub impact actually wiped out approximately 75% of species on Earth.
The 90% figure is usually used for the Permian Extinction event 225 million years ago. (I might be a bit off, I'm pulling this from memory).
That one was caused by intense Volcanic activity in modern Day Siberia caused by a Mantle Plume.
Chixilub: Yes, and you can see that on the mass extinction chart. The vertical bar showing the diversity loss from Chixilub is much shorter/smaller than the one for the end-Permian.
Permian: Prior flood-volcanism may had capped the surface above the mantle plume, forcing subsequent magma to migrate laterally through (wait for it....) underlying coal and other carbon-rich sedimentary rock formations, massively injecting sulfur and carbon into the atmosphere.
Enjoyed this take as a quasi science literate layman
I hadn't considered the hidden death wish for the industrialist, but given his AI abilities to predict, it certainly seems very plausible, especially since he has an uncanny appearance to the Heavens Gate cult leader from the Hale-Bopp comet
10:18 The Chelyabinsk meteor was in 2013, not 2003. Even the timestamp on the video that you show has 2013/02/15. No big, i am sure you just misspoke. Overall this was a terrific video, loved your breakdown on this film.
I saw something go off in the upper atmosphere about 10 years ago and it lit up the ground like daylight but no sound so it must have been very high up where the atmosphere was too thin to carry sound waves.
From Wikipedia, you probably saw a Superbolide YEA! And It probably exploded with The force of tens of pounds of T & T
A superbolide is a bolide that reaches an apparent magnitude of −17 or brighter,[4][6] which is roughly 100 times brighter than the full moon. Recent examples of superbolides include the Sutter's Mill meteorite in California and the Chelyabinsk meteor in Russia.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolide
I'd like to hear your take on the movie Greenland.
Hmm. Might do a roundup of comet/asteroid movies.
@@MichaelSiegel14 sounds good! Thanks!
A lazy trashfire like that deserves a serious beatdown.
I would love to see him review the docudrama Called Without warning. It was An entire movie done from the perspective of being a giant news report about a series of comets Which were impacting the Earth. It was pretty impressive for the time I'd say. And I'd love to hear just How accurate it was from an actual astronomer. As it takes some very interesting liberties when it comes to astrophysics especially near the end of it. Which I found quite fascinating when they reveal the true origin of why these impact objects are occurring. I'll be honest that ending felt genuine like that's how we would actually react If we Actually ended up encountering something like that and I don't mean the comet I mean the causes behind it
"You can't take the skies from me." < Firefly, "Life will find a way" < Jurassic Park. Did you do this on purpose? :) Anyway, great video, this channel is sure to be another rabbit hole of mine. Thanks!
~14:00 It wouldn't have mattered where the data came from. The point was to criticize the source because the data is correct and you don't like what it implies. Therefore you criticize the person making the Claim Making them look bad therefore they shouldn't be Taken seriously.
I saw the green comet... a week or two before it was reported in the NZ news. So happy I got to see it. Couldn't spot it after tho... I'm only using binoculars.
Love your stuff, always fascinating ♥️
14:00 "..someone from east yechupetzville state." Nice touch there, @Dr.Mike
Good Stuff, thanks.
Human beings, like cockroaches, are very difficult to kill.
Life ... uh ... finds a way.
@29:35, where natural disasters fails humanity would succeed. I’m more worried about us intentionally destroying ourselves through war or climate change.
If you want something done right…LOL
In some ways, I enjoy these reviews more than the movies. :D
Why don't they show the astronomers in a control room with, like, wall to wall screens, and flick back and forth between that and dark glimmers of the telescope moving? That would be fun. Silly, but fun! :)
You’re very good at this. I can’t wait for more videos about film science. 🌋🌋🌋
The dinosaurs did not go extinct. They evolved into the birds that we have here today. Sure the big ones did go extinct that is but the dinosaurs roamed among us every day hundreds of millions of different types and zillions of individuals
I could watch these breakdowns all day, extremely interesting to listen to your breakdowns of these movies.
Hi Micheal, What are your thoughts on the impact and debris catching missions to comets that didn't match expectations when it comes to ice/water content? And since the comets we have got detail pictures of all look pretty much the same (very moon like) do you think that should change our theories of comet composition and the explanation for the comet tails? Especially the "snowball" model?
And since comets have a very moon like appearance with impact craters everywhere and we have seen from photographs that they don't change in appearance much even after a full orbit doesn't that make the standard "ice ball" model highly unlikely?
Shouldn't they if made primarily of ice, while leaving a trail of material behind that we can see be constantly changing, melting and re freezing erasing most evidence of impacts, losing significant mass, and have shifting and unpredictable orbits because of the changes in size/shape/center of gravity?
I heard one theory that since comets do have high quartz/crystalline content that the coma especially the one in the front of the comet could be an aurora type effect from the quartz/crystals, charged particles, and the suns magnetic field all interacting. Have you heard this? And what are your thoughts on that idea?
Thanks.
It's a satire, it's not supposed to tell you a good story, it's supposed to make you see the blatant missfunctionalities of something, here beying today's society and... revolt, of course. The more you revolt, the better it is, I consider it to the best satire ever made, and I can get into details if one wants. A comedy is usually about dumb sh1t, this is for from it; this is dumb sh1ts may they be politicians, ordinary people who elect them or the very technology that does the thinking for everyone, winning against the smarter minority of our planet that actually are responsible for most of the progress of the human race. But that might count for little opposed to the big mediocre dumb masses that lead everyone in the same direction. It's tragically funny of how true that is, the revolting kind of funny. That's me not getting into the details of the satire, The Brontorac satire of info algorithms is nr. 1 for me. Just mentioning one, couldn't resist. This movie is nothing short of brilliant.🤗
Great Video thanks
What's that about ephemerids going towards zero meaning it will hit Earth? There must be more coordinates than one. And what is the difference between a comet and an asteroid anyway? Is it just the composition?
I thought the movie started out great but devolved into unnecessary absurdity (and, yes, ham-fisted metaphor) as it progressed. The humor was much more subtle toward the beginning of the film and basically became slapstick toward the end.
I beg to differ on the same or worse part though, blowing up an asteroid that is. I mean, is the fact that the majority of the heat would be released way up in the atmosphere, and a large portion radiated out towards space, taken into consideration there? And added bonus, the possibility of zero solid objects actually hitting the surface, that's always fine by me. Not to mention, this could also be performed as early as a mission to change the trajectory, so pretty early... that means a % of fragments not necessarily hitting Earth at all, but the Moon, or start orbiting both, or just missing completely.
It at least seeeeems more favorable to me. Of course if there is the distinct possibility of changing trajectories, that sounds nicer.
Thank you for the narrative feast.
Putting a sleeper ship in orbit to wait out a disaster was actually used in one of the serials of classic Doctor Who. I don’t recall the specific reason (think it was something like unusual solar activity that would render the planet uninhabitable), and humanity put a space station in orbit full of people in cryo along with banks full of genetic samples of flora and fauna with the plan to be for them to come out of cryo once Earth has had time to recover from the ecological disaster and start repopulating the planet.
Was that the Ark In Space story during the Tom Baker era in the 1970s?
@@MightyJonE yep, that’s the one (the one with a monster made from spray painted bubble wrap in one part 😜).
You can't take the sky from. I love the channel and love the Firefly lyrics reference.
"haven't not seen it"
Are you fucking with me?
Hi Michael, can you review the movie " The Mist"
You've mentioned Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time" several times already. And you've indicated a willingness to cover books. So how about covering the book?
I just found out there's 2 Disney films adapting this book, but I'll be honest, I don't care about the movies only because of the bad tendency of Disney taking excessive "creative licenses" with other Creator's materials. And no I haven't seen either movies whilst I have read the book and 2 other subsequent books in the Time Quintet. I suspect ye may be able to skip the other books since they don't cover astronomy at all and touches on physics only in the passing.
Specifically, the second book, "A Wind in the Door," is more a esoteric mix of fantasy and biology.
The third book, "A Swiftly Tilting Planet," is more an exercise in Time Travel and skirts the Grandfather Paradox and nuclear devastation.
The fourth, "Many Waters," is a mix of time travelling again and biblical theology.
Finally the final book, "An Acceptable Time," is a new book to me (I previously had thought it was only a trilogy). It appears to be another time travel to 3000 years in the past.
I haven't read the last two books yet because I only found out about these two's existance just now.
Can we add RAH's "Number of the Beast" The lateral shift described in RAH's "Number of the Beast" lends credibility to ERB's "John Carter of Mars"
An excellent review Michael -- many thanks! Personally, I really liked the Carl Sagan mentions at the beginning of the movie! 🌠
30:37 A student-teacher romance would never have worked in this movie. Jennifer Lawrence is way to old for DiCaprio.
LOL
daw, i wanted you to make a comment on the Bronterocs.
There seems to be something missing from the analysis of blowing up an object. Many tons of material enter the atmosphere every day and we don't feel it. If that mass was consolidated and hit at one place and time, it would do more damage not less.
You are forgetting the the VELOCITY part of the equation. Small bullets kill because they go real fast. Even if the best pitcher in baseball throws a bullet at you, it aint gonna have the same result as a musket.
@@cozmothemagician7243 Why should the small particles that hit us constantly be slower? Shooting stars seem to have a lot of speed, and with a larger cross section to mass ratio they must slow down faster.
you're trying to compare splitting a bullet into fluffsized particles that hit you with taking a mortar shell and splitting it into bullet sized object hitting you all at the same speed.
@@Agarwaen That's the kind of scientific quantitative answer I was hoping for. Thanks.
You can’t take the sky from meeee…😉nice.
👍🍺🍺🍺😁😁😁
I don't stream anything, but your videos are so damn interesting. I just found your channel so expect some comments on older videos. As far as "sexism" goes, I would pay more attention to a female scientist, it's in the male nature to do so. One more thing, is the actress supposed to be an Amy Shira Teitel lookalike?
17:20 “you can’t take the sky from us”
low-orbit massive satellite constellations: hold my beer
This movie just depressed me tbh. Not enjoyable at all.
@17:02 Thank you for making this reference. ❤ 😉🤘
When deflecting asteroids, the idea of landing a thruster on it and then pushing is nuts.
Why would you waste all the momentum you got just by arriving there on time by slowing down to land?
Use every ounce of what you launch to hammer that sucker.
I had that thought myself once but then I realized that you would still need something strong enough to survive the impact to push it off Hard enough and given how much it cost to Get things into space I think the dart system test was about the close we're going to get.
The movie was written as a take down of the drift towards ‘idiocracy’ in current US politics. Specifically the president is analogous to Trump, like people chanting of simplistic slogans (“Don’t look up”) as populist conditioning to fact denial and anti-science. Donors with “platinum level access” etc. etc.
Exactly, this is a kind of a parody, it's silly to criticize the realism of a movie like that, like you would do on the Martian or Interstellar etc.
This morning in Raabs. Last night in Nisa
People aren't "good". They are neutral. People are trying to survive and to guarantee their survival, and there are many survival strategies, all of which are successful to some degree. (Some we say are good, some we say are evil.) Determining what is "good" requires a complex analysis of cause and effect, and an individual's analysis will vary wildly based on initial assumptions. I believe that "good" is a real thing that can be solved like a complex scientific problem, but any perceived correlation between human behavior and "good" is really just the behavior that reduces pain and promotes survival within a group of people, within a certain set of circumstances.
lifeboat ethics, as often mentioned by scifi author Robert Heinlein.
@@celtspeaksgoth7251 I think I am doing a deeper analysis. The problem is that "good" is an ideological judgement that varies between ideological systems. While I would be happy to argue that an ethical/ idealistic "good" exists, humans lack the capacity to know it or to adopt it in it's entirety. For example, slavery in America was predominently in the "bible belt", which seems to be a striking contradiction in my eyes! So rather than people being good or trying to be good, they create ideological systems to justify the evil they do. In the end people allow themselves to believe they are good, because they have white washed the evil they do.
17:00: Nice Firefly reference. :)
I don't think I'll ever intuitively understand the kinetic energy formula. Why is it proportional to the square of the velocity? I've done thought experiments to try and make that clearer. Got some kind of mental block about it.
Seems to be same equation as E = m * c^2, except e = 0.5 m v^2. My mental bloc is over PE : Potential Energy = mgh. I just can't see how a still object has any energy at all, e.g. a paperweight on a table. If it falls to the ground there is a force on impact, hence energy involved, so to satisfy the principle of preserving energy we imagine PE just before it starts to fall.
How does "work = force * distance" and sit with you?
Now, think about pushing an object, starting when it's not moving.
That first push, it dosent move very far. But, once it's moving, if you want to apply the same force for the same time, then it's going to have moved that much further and so will have taken that much more work to get the same change in speed.
Rich guy doesn't want to kill humanity
He's just sees the opportunity for money
He represents the lies of the oil industry about hydrogen production and carbon capture.
My main gripe with the movie was that you can mine _any_ asteroid. So if you're gonna do that, it really doesn't need to be the one aimed at wiping us out. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie nevertheless: Ignoring the political/satirical message, which I didn't care for or about, I felt the dramatic tension and release was masterfully crafted, and it kept me on the edge of my seat throughout. Thanks for pointing out realism and inaccuracies I had missed (I too suppose it gets a pass because it's a comedy). Your solar sail argument cracked me up! I just discovered your channel and enjoy your videos at breakfast ;-)
Anyone with sense would have told the rich dude”Too soon my man. Let’s get out of danger first.”
$700 _quintillion_ worth of gold? I’d imagine even the moon made of solid gold wouldn’t be approaching that.
Yes, you need young people to re-start future civilizations. But do you think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump will give up their seats? They'll be on that ship too.
I think human beings are basically good. . .
(At 26m, 35secs.) You say it wouldn't be a good idea to repopulate the world with ''2000 Old Rich White people''. Old and rich I understand, but why would it make a difference which colour their skin would be? Just asking...
The wider the genetic material, the better.
Despite the movie depicting a world killer asteroid impact, the actual metaphor of the movie is avout climate change and the constant denial or apathy of the powers that be who are in bed with disaster hypercapitalism, made by billionaires who believe even if shit gets bad they are rich enough to buy a solution and keep living their luxurious lives unaffected by a world wide problem that will kill millions of poorer people.
There is a movie that shows what earth would look like after the impact of a civilization killer asteroid: its called THE ROAD. While the cause is never stated because the story is seen from the eyes of two everymen, the depiction of the earth seen in the movie is consistent with a large scale impact: the atmosphere is polluted, there's a permanent overcast sky consistent with huge amounts of dust in the higher atmosphere, causing a perpectual dusk even at noon, and the movie shows constant sysmic events even on locations in the USA with no sysmic history, making them be replicas of the original impact, the original shockwave constantly circling the Earth which would last for decades and even probably bosting already sysmic active regions into overdrive.
As regards the US, check out YT for predictions were the active volcano underneath Yellowstone to erupt. Seismic.
So missing the point about 100%.
The movie is about climate change, not comets. It's about things we are certain about and can actually prevent - and how our business interests and politics doom us
As an environmentalist, I get that nuclear power has lower greenhouse emissions. But it just has different waste and risk problems to fossil fuels.
Thankfully we don't need fossil fuels or nuclear to power our world.
The transition is thankfully on.
This was a most excellent review.
So what is then the problem? Why all the fuss if we already are good?
"Environmentalists" only maximising the issue to get money and influence?
We need nuclear power until we have cheap and scalable battery technology. Even after we have that, we still need nuclear power due to the many decades it will take to deploy the batteries.
@@anticarrrot- batteries only store energy, they are not producing anything as nuclear power plants do, the thing with climate activists are they argue under false premises, they are against absolutely everything, including nuclear technology
@Don Carlo di Vargas Yes thank you. I do know what batteries are.
I also know there are valid criticisms of the nuclear industry, and that the real villains of the piece are the anti climate change activists.
The latter are far more responsible for our current mess than their opponents.
@@anticarrrot - so, what is the solution? And what is the "mess" actually?
It is really puzzling how it is the same people that criticise our society that at the same time need it more than others, I can sit out in the wilderness, at a campfire, eating a moose I hunted myself, can you? Can your grandmother? How will your children manage without the niceties in our civilization?
And the batteries, how should they solve anything?
Lol, a large asteroid disintegrating in Earth’s atmosphere would cause global warming? That’s dumber than anything in this parody move. In fact, that would make a better movie - they plan on Having it disintegrate in the atmosphere in order stop global warming. And something that stupid/risky is clearly way more believable!
It's about as dumb as rubbing your hands together to generate warmth.
Oh wait.....
A giant asteroid disintegrating in Earth’s atmosphere would cause global warming. . . I think human beings are basically good. . .your channel is a parody.
Compute the amount of kinetic energy the comet would have. Where do you think this energy would go? The energy wouldn't change even if it disintegrated in the atmosphere - not that this is possible.
Aliens ho noi anh la King. Ok. Bay gio biet anh la King.