Explaining that getting to the ISS from Hubble’s orbit would take way more fuel than shown in the movie Gravity is useful. It can lead to explanations of Delta-V and how far apart things are in space. That’s good.
Artificially locking in the definition of the parameters to be the same as on Earth for a fictional planet just so he can say “it’s wrong” is just a waste of time. It’s like arguing over whether the Enterprise could fight the Death Star. It’s all made up, so the answer is whatever you want it to be.
So it’s not that’s it’s he’s criticizing things for being incorrect. It’s that he’s making assumptions about fictional things just to say it’s incorrect. It’s intellectually dishonest, and there’s no real point to it. Nobody is learning anything about anything real if we talk about the relationship between sand worms and how sand trout could be alerted by a nearby sound which then alerts a massive sand worm that comes around to protect it’s babies.
It’s just navel gazing at it’s worst.
Explaining that getting to the ISS from Hubble’s orbit would take way more fuel than shown in the movie Gravity is useful. It can lead to explanations of Delta-V and how far apart things are in space. That’s good.
Artificially locking in the definition of the parameters to be the same as on Earth for a fictional planet just so he can say “it’s wrong” is just a waste of time. It’s like arguing over whether the Enterprise could fight the Death Star. It’s all made up, so the answer is whatever you want it to be.
So it’s not that’s it’s he’s criticizing things for being incorrect. It’s that he’s making assumptions about fictional things just to say it’s incorrect. It’s intellectually dishonest, and there’s no real point to it. Nobody is learning anything about anything real if we talk about the relationship between sand worms and how sand trout could be alerted by a nearby sound which then alerts a massive sand worm that comes around to protect it’s babies.