Science, we have a problem…

Yeah, I’m talking to you, Mr Science. Or at least, to whoever it is who keeps getting quoted by that name in the newspapers 

‘Science says this’, ‘Science confirms that’, ‘Science proves the other’… hardly a day goes by without some new revelation about what this Science fellow has finally worked out for himself. And if my newsfeed for 2015 is anything to go by, he’s had a particularly busy year. 

Let’s take a few of the more recent scientific discoveries to have been splashed about all over the internet, shall we? Starting with my all-time personal favourite. It was widely reported under various headlines over the last two weeks, this one’s from the Daily Express.

“People who post inspirational quotes on Facebook and Twitter are stupid, Science says.” 

It seems that a scientific study conducted by the University of Waterloo in Ontario has finally established that “people who are more receptive to these so-called inspirational statements tend to also have lower levels of intelligence.”

Got that, folks? So all those people who attribute ‘Give Peace a Chance’ to Nelson Mandela on your Facebook newsfeed might really be precisely as idiotic as you already think they are. It has been ‘proven by Science’… which is just as well, because we’d never have worked it out otherwise.

And yet, all you really need to do is turn on your PC. The first thing I saw this morning, for instance, was… this (posted by around three different people): 

“Shakespeare said: ‘I always feel happy. You know why? Because I don’t expect anything from anyone. Expectations always hurt. Life is short, so love your life, be happy and… keep smiling!’” 

Curiously, this ‘inspirational quote’ omitted the part where Shakespeare added: “That’s how I roll, motherf***er!”, before launching into a gangsta-rap sonnet about some Moorish booty he picked up outside the downtown mall….

But it’s OK, folks. We now have the full weight of scientific authority to confirm to us that… yes, all those Facebook friends of ours really are every bit as dumb as the idiotic things they post on their wall. So when I commented: “Shall I compare thee to an idle-headed, clay-brained codpiece?”… it is comforting to know that the correct scientific answer is ‘Yes’.

Nor was this the only case of Science boldly proving what we all already knew anyway. Another recent scientific study attempted “to test the hypothesis that lecturing maximises learning and course performance, [by] metaanalyzing 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance under traditional lecturing versus active learning…”

The resulting discovery? ‘Boring teachers aren’t as good at their job as interesting ones’. Officially confirmed by Science, you know…so I guess it must be true.

That, however, is but a small part of my problem with Science. The other part of it is… between us, I think he’s trying to kill me.

Consider this recent scientific study: ‘Alcohol makes you more creative, science finds’. Or this: ‘Up to two glasses of wine good for you, Science says’. Or this: ‘Alcohol consumption improves your sex-life’. Or this: ‘Teetotallers three times as likely to become psychotically deranged, homicidal dictators in Third World Banana Republics…”

Hang on there, Science. What are you trying to do, exactly… turn me into an alcoholic? It’s not like I actually need all these messages. It’s Christmas, for crying out loud. You can’t go anywhere without at least four Jarger bombs poured down your throat…

And what are you going to prove next, anyway? That driving drunk without a selt-beat increases your life expectancy by 15%? Or that shooting heroin three times daily actually makes you immortal? (Hey, you never know. Just look at Keith Richards…) 

I don’t know, Science. I’m starting to get this sneaky feeling you’re lulling me into a misplaced sense of security here…

Now, however, you’ve taken things too far. Proving the obvious, I can put up with. Trying to kill me might be pushing it slightly, but I can understand. But ruining the new Star Wars movie? That crosses the line, Science. I expect nothing less than a full public apology.

Preferably from Neil De Grasse Tyson. He’s the astrophysicist wot did it. Here are a few of his Tweets about ‘The Force Awakens’ (note: I’ll limit myself to the ones that don’t give too much away):

“BB-8, a smooth rolling metal spherical ball, would have skidded uncontrollably on sand…”

“the TIE fighters made exactly the same sound in the vacuum of space as in planetary atmospheres”

“…the energy in a Star is enough to destroy ten-thousand planets, not just a few here and there.”

Etc, etc.

Coming from the world’s foremost astrophysicist, I’m kind of perplexed. Is that all you noticed, Neil? How about the fact that every single planet ever featured in the Star Wars universe has an atmosphere that is perfectly breathable… not just by humans, but by all other alien species as well? Regardless of where and under what circumstance these may have evolved? 

There’s also that teenie-weenie detail about ‘light speed’ being used to cover astronomical distances. Our galaxy isn’t particularly big by universal standards. We’re only 100,000 light years across. Still, if you travel from one side to the other at the speed of light – as Han Solo claims to have done, several times – it would take 100,000 years each way. 

Can you imagine, Neil, what the pension plan for an intergalactic freighter pilot would actually look like…? 

Yet another anomaly concerns gravity. There doesn’t seem to be any variation whatsoever in the gravitational pull in any of these worlds… not even the tiny asteroid visited by the Millennium Falcon in The Empire Strikes Back. 

In reality, the gravitational pull of an asteroid that size would be minimal. You could probably propel yourself into orbit with a single kick of your heel… if not break out of its pull altogether, and drift off into space.

The habitable planets could, of course, all be comparable in size. But in density also? Seems unlikely. Take a couple of planets which actually exist. Mars is roughly half the radius of Earth; but being less dense, its gravitational pull is 68% lower. So if you take the scene where Darth Vader hurls the Emperor down that bottomless shaft, and film it on Mars… the falling body would accelerate at roughly 3.38 metres per second (taking around four minutes of screen-time to disappear from view).

On the Death Star itself, which is the size of a ‘small moon’, the chances are he would fall too slowly for the movement to even be perceptible. 

But you didn’t think of that one, did you, Neil?

Meanwhile, the Death Star may indeed have had enough mass to generate its own gravity field, weak though it would have been. But what about all the other, much smaller spaceships? Like the Rebel transport from the very first scene of the first film? 

To be believable, the Stormtroopers would have had to float gently inside after zapping the doorway. And when Darth Vader hurled the deceased commander against a wall, his body would have bounced off and drifted across the cabin horizontally, at half the original momentum. (Darth Vader, incidentally, would likewise have been propelled backwards at the same speed…)

Then there are the bits and bobs that look good in the movies, but would be difficult to imagine in reality. Take Tatooine, for instance. It has two suns. Not a twin star, which would be entirely reasonable. Two separate suns, which can clearly be setting almost simultaneously in A New Hope. 

Technically, Tatooine could be orbiting only one of these suns… there is no indication of distance; one could be much larger and further away than the other. But its gravitational pull would be much larger, too. Large enough to wreak unimaginable havoc with the planet’s orbit trajectory. 

So when Uncle Owen tells Luke he needs him for ‘just another year”... how long would a year on Tatooine be? Would it even be consistent from one year to the next? Would calendar time even be measured in solar orbits at all, on a planet like that?  

No wonder Luke seems so upset in the film. ‘One year’ could easily be an entire lifetime for a human… if not several millennia.

But that’s the thing with mixing Science with movies, Neil. If all people actually wanted from the Star Wars franchise was authentic space dynamics… well, they wouldn’t need to bother with the ‘Wars’ part, would they? 

They’d be like you, Neil. Content with looking only at the stars, while ruining all the magic for everyone else.