Real Genius (1985)

Growing up, there were certain movies that seemed to come on a lot.  If you had pay channels, you were usually treated a limited selection any given month, so it wasn’t unusual to see the same movie several times.  One of the movies I remember was Real Genius.   Val Kilmer played Chris Knight, a genius who’s ready to graduate.  Replacing him is Mitch Taylor, played by Gabriel Jarret, a fifteen-year-old whiz kid.  Mitch is recruited by Professor Jerry Hathaway, who’s building a laser.  As it so happens, that’s what Mitch is interested in.

Mitch is rather straight laced.  He’s all study and no party, as opposed to Chris, who’s all party and almost study.  Professor Hathaway needs his laser, as in right now, so Chris’s lack of work is a problem.  In fact, the good professor threatens to not pass Chris in a necessary class that only Hathaway teaches.  As the school year progresses, Chris gets Mitch to loosen up a bit.  Mitch gets Chris to work a little harder, even if it’s to show Hathaway who’s boss.

They’re joined by a hyperactive/insomniac woman who seems to have a thing for Mitch.  There’s also Kent, who is the teacher‘s pet writ large.  (He’s what they call a legend in his own mind.)  Kent, Mitch and Chris are joined on the laser project by "Ick" Ikagami.  Oh, and there’s a guy named Lazlo Hollyfeld living in the closet of Mitch and Chris’s dorm room.

There were a lot of memorable scenes in the movie.  The one I remember is a series of scenes showing an increasing number of students recording a lecture until the professor gives up and simply leaves a recording of his planned lecture.  Another is Mitch discovering Lazlo’s secret lair.  I remember wishing I had something like that.

One thing I never noticed until my most recent viewing is that the movie features not one but two revenge stories.  After Mitch is tormented by Kent and his lackeys, Chris convinces Mitch to not only stay by get back at Kent by moving Kent’s car into his dorm room.  Later, when Chris is confronted with the reality of not graduating and getting his dream job, Mitch returns the favor.  Not only does Chris stay and graduate, they get back at Hathaway for being such an arrogant jerk.

This leads to a scene tested on Mythbusters.  (Note:  If you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want the ending spoiled, skip this paragraph.)  For those that have seen the movie, you probably remember the laser-made popcorn destroying Hathaway’s house.  Yes, it is possible for a laser to make popcorn.  However, it was determined that the destruction of the house could not have been the result of the popcorn.  Once it fills up the house, the pressure of the structure should be enough to keep the resulting volume from expanding.  The popcorn on the edge will be crushed.

The movie has a very goofy slant to it.  Part of the beauty of the movie is that it owns its goofiness.  It can be extreme, but isn’t really.  Yes, Chris and Mitch are opposites, at least during the course of the movie, but they manage to learn from each other.  They each learn to own their own lives and realize that they do have some control over their lives.  We all have to grow up, but how we do that is up to us.  Even Lazlo has hope.

IMDb page

Hyperspace (2001)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

I really haven’t been watching too many movies since I started working. The problem is that I sometimes get home at 7:00 and have TV programs that start at 8:00 or 9:00. Factor in dinner and I really don’t have time for a two-hour feature.

When I came across Hyperspace, I figured I’d give it a shot. The description that NetFlix gave said simply that Sam Neill hosts and that it covers topics like black holes and the birth and death of stars. Ok. I like astronomy and I’ve liked some of the movies that Sam Neill has been in. The entire thing was on one disc and had six episodes, each thirty minutes in length. I figured it was the perfect combination.

I liked the fact that each episode was 30 minutes long and the presentation was great, but content left something to be desired. The DVD amounts to three hours of eye candy. What information the DVD has is mostly speculation about what else is out there or where we might end up once the Earth is destroyed.

On that note, each episode has a theme. One is on black holes and how they might destroy the Earth. Another deals with the threat that errant asteroids pose to Earth. One is on the life and death of stars, including our own and how our star will eventually destroy the Earth. Notice a pattern? The documentary repeatedly points out how extremely lucky we are just to be here.

I really can’t recommend this for anyone who’s looking for something really informative. It looks like something that came out of a sci-fi movie. The DVD looks like it’s perfect for a high-school class. The only other time I would tell someone to watch it is if they’re just getting into science or if they really like CGI.

I’d give the DVD four stars. I liked the fact that it was all on one DVD, allowing me to watch the whole thing without wasting any rental positions. It ended up being something that I was able to watch before dinner or while I was waiting for my next show to start. If you’re looking for a documentary that’s easy to watch, this is the one.

IMDb page

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (13 Nov. 2007)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions accouint.

“Who are you going to believe… me or your own eyes?”

- Groucho Marx

I always found it odd that people were willing to take creationism at face value.  They believe that the Earth was created in six days and that God rested on the seventh.  They also believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and that humans were created in God’s image.  It just seemed odd that people were willing to take one book’s word for it.

Well, many of the people of Dover, PA, were no different.  A few years ago, a group of people decided that something called Intelligent Design (cough cough…creationism…cough cough) should be taught alongside evolution as science, or at least a viable alternate explanation.  This had been going on in other cities, as well, but Nova decided to document Dover’s case.

Those that believed in Evolution brought the issue to trial, claiming that ID had no scientific credibility.  After all, evolution had observation and explanations and stuff.  ID had… well, the advantage of being ‘obvious’.  I mean, look at us.  How could something as complex as a human be left to chance?  We had to have had an intelligent creator that created us as we are.

It’s kind of hard to give an in-depth analysis of the plot because of the fact that it’s so basic.  The episode simply follows the battle between science and ID.  To make the case, the prosecution had to prove that ID was either religious in nature or was designed to promote religion.  It was fairly easy to show that ID didn’t follow the same rigor as science, but the prosecution needed a smoking gun, which they found.  (I’ll let you be surprised if you’re interested in watching this.)

Now, here’s the thing.  As with other highly debated subjects, those that agree with the outcome (ID being thrown out of the school system) will see the episode of Nova as fair and balanced.  Thos that disagree will think that only a heathen whack job would believe it.  Being one of the heathen whack jobs, I’m glad that I’m not in school any more.  I’m glad that I was never tested on any form of ID because I would have hated life.

There are many Christians that  absolutely adamant that God created the Earth simply because the Bible says so.  They will never accept that bacteria do actually mutate and evolve.  They will refute fossils as a trick by God to test their faith.  They see something labeled as a theory and think that it’s not fact.  (Granted, it’s not actually complete…yet.  ‘Theory’ means that science has yet to work out the details.)

Yes, I’m an atheist.  The reason that I chose science over faith is that science has proof where faith has a book.  Faith doesn’t take well do doubt whereas science relies upon it.  I have a hard time accepting something simply because someone tells me it’s so.  This is why I’ll see a movie even if someone tells me it’s horrible.  There are some things that I have to know for myself.

Lee Smolin - Three Roads to Quantum Gravity

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

Quantum gravity isn’t a subject for everyone. I’ve been reading a few books on it recently and this book is the most recent. For those that don’t know, the theory of quantum gravity is one of several attempts to unify the theories that deal with large-scale things, like planets, and the theories that deal with small-scale things, like electrons and other subatomic particles. It would essentially create one theory that explains everything from the largest object down to the smallest possible particle.

I hadn’t heard of the author, Lee Smolin, before I came across this book. However, he does have a firm grasp of the subject. According to the back of the book, he’s a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and Professor of Physics at Waterloo University.

If you haven’t heard of quantum theory before, you’ll probably need to do some reading before you start this book. It’s not that the information is unclear. It’s just that you might not catch everything. It’s like trying to drive a sports car if you’ve never driven before. You’ll have to work your way up. Someone new to this kind of science in general will probably be confused after the first few chapters.

The author admits that the book is meant for the “intelligent layperson”. He hasn’t assumed a previous knowledge of the book’s subject. However, physics isn’t really what you’d call an ‘easy’ subject. Some of the stuff you may remember from high-school or college science. Much of it will be new to you.

You’re probably wondering about the three roads that the title refers to. They refer to three methods of uniting large-scale and small-scale physics. One is M Theory. (No one is really sure what the ‘M’ stands for.) Another is Loop Quantum Gravity, referred to as LQG. The third is Black-Hole Thermodynamics. The answer could be on one of these ‘roads’ or some combination of all three.

The book deals with all three. However, instead of devoting a section to each ‘road’, the book is written chronologically, which does make it easier to understand. The three areas of research have some things in common and may one day prove to be parts of the same thing.

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in physics. There were a few parts that were somewhat difficult to understand, but the book as a whole was easy to read. For someone who knows at least something about physics, the book is fairly easy to understand. The chapters are very well organized and presented. The author does a good job of explaining things. The only complaint that I had was that at times, it seemed like the author was almost bragging, telling about certain things that he’s done. However, it does help to have someone that’s done work in the field, which makes feeling like that unavoidable. I’d give the book four stars. 

Quantum Physics Overview (about.com)

Quantum Mechanics (pbs.org)

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

 

I remember seeing these stickers all around town many years ago.  It read, “What is God?/God is love.”  Carl Sagan has a slightly different interpretation of God.  It’s not that he doesn’t believe in God.  It’s simply that he defines God as the sum of all the rules of physics, chemistry and other sciences that the universe has set forth for us.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience is the printed transcripts of his Gifford Lectures, in which he goes over various scientific topics like extraterrestrial intelligence, Darwin and our changing image of where we fit into the universe.  The book is divided into nine chapters, although I’m not sure if it was one long lecture, nine shorter lectures or somewhere in between.

The first chapter is called Nature and Wonder: A Reconnaissance of Heaven, which deals mostly with the universe and the various things to be found in it, such as stars, galaxies, supernovae and so forth.  The second is called The Retreat from Copernicus:  A Modern Loss of Nerve and is about the various theories of Earth, the universe and how old everything is.  The third chapter is called The Organic Universe and deals with evolution and the possibility of life in and beyond our solar system.

Chapters four and five, Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Extraterrestrial Folklore: Implications for the Evolution of religion deal with, as you might expect, alien life.  This is where he gets into things like the Drake Equation and abduction theories.  Sagan treats extraterrestrial life with the same skepticism as he does religion.  As much as one might want to believe that there are aliens out there, we have no definitive proof that they exist.  He does deal with the various ways that we might encounter and/or detect their presence, like radio waves.

In chapters six and seven, he gets into religion and how religion was often at odds with science.  Some have even tried to use science to prove the existence of God.  Sagan doesn’t buy into any of the supposed proofs.  At one point, he asks why God would put so much proof into the Bible, but leave such a small amount of proof in everyday life.  It would be hard to deny the existence of a God if he had a very large crucifix in orbit or was able to put some undeniable scientific truth in the Bible.

Chapter eight deals with how life on our planet might be destroyed.  It looks at nuclear war and objects hitting the Earth.  The threat of nuclear war is real and life could easily come to an end by our own hand.  The last chapter ties everything up.  Sagan tries to give us a sense of how small we are compared to the cosmic background.  After chapter nine are selected questions presented to Sagan by the audience and answers he gave.  This is definitely worth reading.  (Some of the questions were lost due to poor recording instruments.)

The overriding theme of the book seems to be to not take things at face value.  Those that argue against science say that it’s supposed to be perfect, but it’s not.  It may try to put us closer to perfection.  It may give us a set of rules that work very well, but to say that we will definitely attain perfection is a mistake.  We cannot even take what we know of science at face value.  One of the core tenants is to keep checking what we know verses what we see.

On that note, I’ve never been clear as to why radio transmissions have been our best bet for alien contact.  Sure, it’s the only means by which we can look right now, but I’m not sure why an alien civilization would necessarily be using it or why we’d be able to know that some alien transmission is what we’re looking for.  I suppose that it’s possible that an alien civilization might pick up ours and figure it out, but that’s assuming that they’re even looking.

The book isn’t long-winded or boring.  The copy I got from the library is 260 pages including the Q&A section.  It’s very easy to read a chapter at a time.  This is partly due to the pictures in the book.  Many of the pictures were used in the lecture, although a few were replaced with better versions.  The lectures took place in 1985 while the book wasn’t published until 2006.

I can’t say for certain that there is no God, but if there is a God, I doubt very much that God is anything like in the Bible or any other religious book.  I don’t think that we could possibly understand that kind of God.  Instead, I would tend to think as Sagan does that we have an entire universe set before us and it’s up to us to figure it out.  I’ve never understood why someone would accept creationism based on the word of one book, yet discount evolution despite the evidence.

I’d recommend reading the book.  I realize that there are probably people on both sides of the science/religion debate that are firm in their beliefs and either won’t read it or will come into it with some sort of preconceived notion.  Don’t do this, as it will take away from the book.  One thing I like about the book is Sagan’s ability to set up reasoning as to why he believes as he does.  Sure, people will challenge his beliefs.  This is what science is about.  I’m not saying that I’m always right.  I’d simply ask you to make a lucid counterargument.

Admittedly, a few things here ore there were left out for the sake of making the book more readable.  If anyone reading this was present at the lectures, I’d like to know how true the book is to what was actually said.

Feel free to leave comments.

Google Books page