26th September 2006, 9:57 PM
That's a fun read, he has no idea what he's talking about but i'm assuming it was more of an entertainment piece.
As far as impossibilities such as eyes too small to recieve light; well, that would kinda kill the film. The audience doesn't want to watch blind characters explore the unexplorable. Even if the script writers or director did the research and realized the impossibility, he would have still gone for the impossibility because it makes a better story. The same applies to all the films he mentions. So it's kinda one of those things that's all based on opinion anyway. Who's to say the 'radiation' didn't make their bones stronger, etc. But I always get annoyed when people in college try to disprove something or prove something by comparing the hundreds of thousands of sophisticated working parts of a living thing that has been perfected over millions and millions of years to 'a cylinder filled with water'. He even makes mention that dinosaurs such as brachiosaur couldn't lift its head or swim in ten feet of water which as anyone who's studied anything about brachiosaur knows to be false. They have, so far, out lived every single thing on this planet within its major role, except perhaps crocodiles, in terms of time on earth. I sincerely doubt that a creature so adapted and so successful would burst internally when it reached depths of ten feet. Especially since the characteristics of brachiosaur and other sauropods have alot in common with hippos and elephants and probably needed to keep its skin moist and protected from sunlight.
Brachiosaur was no more intelligent than a retarded infant cow and this was because it had very, very little need for much blood (or blood pressure) in its head. Allowing it to reach whatever heights the treetops were or walk through a lake up to its nose with his neck fully extended, it's even possible that you could restrict all blood flow to the brachiosaur's head for several hours (perhaps days) before permanent brain damage let alone brain death. The nose on a brachiosaur is on the top of their head and we can find exact copies of this design in marine mammals who use their top-side nose to take breaths of air while staying submerged. Again, not unlike a hippo with its raised protruding nostrils or an elephant who uses its nose like a snorkle. The brachiosaur was very much an amphibious animal as are other sauropods with explains the variations of plesiosauria which reached sizes of blue whale proportions.
So, taking the house cat and blowing it up to sizes of 50 feet from the nose to tail would make a house cat that cant move, however the largest cat in existence is the 'cave lion' at around 12 feet long I think. If you blew up a house cat to these proportions its long legs would have a hard time to be sure, but as the animal struggles to move, hunt, etc it will essentially grow stronger just like a human body builder packing on lean muscle. So, a huge 12 foot long incredibly muscular house cat is not impossible, in fact that's what a cave lion is (one of the 'true' prehistoric cats and not a marsupial or cat-like mammal). So, if you took an animal that is already prepared structurally for massive weight (a bengal tiger) you could probably get that sucker up to 20, maybe 30 feet or so and still have a fully functioning tiger, if only after it gains more muscle. In fact looking at the largest land mammal in existence Baluchitherium who was basically a giant hornless rhino and terratorial as all get out could probably fit a good mold for our giant cat. That total brings our cat to 16 feet tall, 27 feet long and over 13 tons of warm-blooded, fast moving predatory horror. Almost the same size as the house cat from the Incredible Shrinking Man.... almost. Though it would look nothing like a house cat and more like a stocky psuedo-cat.
The Ants in them may be an impossibility if the ants were indeed scaled up regular ants, however there are scorpions and psudoscorpions around ten feet long - about the size of the ants in Them, meaning that it's not only possible that a ant-type insect could exist at that size, but in fact it did. And it walked around on land and would have overthrown entire governments had they existed. And I can guarantee you that throwing a brick at a ten foot scorpion's legs would do little more than piss him off.
Inch-high people or microscopic people may be an impossibility but we know for a fact that a human being (adult) can exist at 20 inches from head to toe, in fact we also know that a human being can exist (with fully functioning organs, a conscious state, etc) at 4 inches long at birth and weigh less than 9 ounces. In fact there have been babies (who survived in to adulthood) recorded at 500 GRAMS and about 3 inches from head to toe. But we dont have to stick to humans, there's plenty of other mammalia out there. How about the hog nosed bat that is about an inch long and weighs 2 grams (at its adult size)? but since we're talking about just sheer existence: Most bacteriology textbooks say Mycoplasma genitalium is the smallest known organism capable of independent growth and reproduction. Its size is given as 0.2 to 0.3 µm (micrometers). A µm is one millionth of a meter (or one thousandth of a millimeter). An average bacterium, like E. coli, is about 1 µm by 3 µm (it has a rod shape). A red blood cell is 8 µm in diameter and the average human cell is about 25 µm across.
Although mycoplasma can live in complex media in the laboratory, in nature they are always found living parasitically, attached to other cells. Since they take preformed nutrients from other cells, they have streamlined their metabolism and only have about 470 genes to use to make all the proteins needed for cell division, energy production, and protein synthesis, etc. These are the simplest cells found so far.
Other small bacteria are rickettsia and chlamydia which can be as small as 0.3 µm. But it's a big world, and probably fewer than 1% of the total bacterial strains have been characterized. That means there are many bacteria that have never been seen, or have been poorly studied. For instance, the marine ultramicrobacteria, Shingomonas sp strain RB2256, has been reported to be able to pass through a 0.22 µm ultrafilter. It should be noted that many bacteria, in response to starvation, go to a dormant state of much smaller size.
(http://www.nas.edu/ssb/nanopanel2delong.htm). It is not clear how many of these "ultramicrobacteria" represent nutrient downsized bacteria.
In 1990, Bob Folk at UT, using an electron microscope, observed 0.05 µm (50 nanometers) "nanobacteria" in rocks from hot springs. Nanobacteria were later found in blood, kidney stones, and in meteorites that came from Mars. Of course, this created quite a stir. But other researchers have not been able to find DNA or protein in nanobacteria, and it may be that the objects seen in the electron microscope are mineral microcrystals. Because of this, many experts doubt the existence of nanobacteria (see Nature (2000) 408, p394). But, supporters continue looking for evidence that nanobacteria are living.
A theoretical discussion of what could be the smallest bacterium possible gives a diameter of 0.17 µm http://www.nas.edu/ssb/nanopanel2adams.htm. This figure also precludes the possibility of nanobacteria. This nas nanopanel site has an excellent series of articles on the size limits of organisms.
Viruses are DNA or RNA that are unable to "live" without invading another cell and they use the molecular machinery of the host cell for metabolism and replication. "Are viruses alive?" is a philosophical question. They certainly have a life cycle and many would say that they are alive when they are infecting a cell. But whether they are alive or not, they don't have to carry around all the genes needed for an independent existence. Therefore, viruses can be very small, from 0.3 µm to 0.02 µm, or 300 to 20 nanometers (nm) in size. Picorna ("little RNA") viruses, like polio, are only 30 nm in diameter. Other viruses, like Parvoviruses, are just a linear single strand of DNA in a capsid with no extra proteins. Parvovirus DNA can be less than 5000 nucleotides long and the Parvoviruses can be as small as 20 nm in size. http://spot.colorado.edu/~schmidts/micro23-2000.html
And then there are viroids. Viroids are small circular single strands of RNA that lack a protein coat. To date, they have been shown to only cause plant diseases. Their RNA can be as short as 248 nucleotides long (80,000 molecular weight), which can be less than 10 nm diameter. http://www.res.bbsrc.ac.uk/mirror/auz/Ictv/fs_viroi.htm
What about prions? Prions are thought to be infectious protein particles that cause several diseases in humans and animals, including Mad Cow Disease. The latest theory is that Prions recruit proteins similar to themselves in the membranes of brain cells. By lining up next to these proteins, they cause a conformational change that converts these brain proteins into Prion proteins, which are about 30,000 molecular weight, or about 5 nm. (These proteins can't be broken down by the cell, so they form aggregates that clog the cell.) It might be a stretch to say that prions are alive, but for completeness, here they are. Somewhere from prions to bacteria you can say life starts, and there are the sizes.
So now lets reverse things: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/hokkan...kanen.html
That should shed some more education on the matter of how big is big and what's possible. Conclusion is that a brachiosaur 5 times its size and mass based on average can exist. Do the math on that one, it makes any movie monster a knee-high threat.
But to get back to my original point: If you approach Planet Dook Dook for any reason we'll use your uerthra as a bottle opener. Oh, and then my elephant-sized lion will pounce the length of 8 school busses on to your hapless body. Or the mile-long snake might get you first, who's to say.
Anyway, tons of little errors and lots of trivial comparisons to tubes and straws and supposed ideals of movie monsters. If the author wanted to prove that movie monsters and special effects aren't realistic I think he may have been underestimating his audience.
But I did find it funny that he mentions the character construction of ET and fails to mention where ET got his eyes.
As far as impossibilities such as eyes too small to recieve light; well, that would kinda kill the film. The audience doesn't want to watch blind characters explore the unexplorable. Even if the script writers or director did the research and realized the impossibility, he would have still gone for the impossibility because it makes a better story. The same applies to all the films he mentions. So it's kinda one of those things that's all based on opinion anyway. Who's to say the 'radiation' didn't make their bones stronger, etc. But I always get annoyed when people in college try to disprove something or prove something by comparing the hundreds of thousands of sophisticated working parts of a living thing that has been perfected over millions and millions of years to 'a cylinder filled with water'. He even makes mention that dinosaurs such as brachiosaur couldn't lift its head or swim in ten feet of water which as anyone who's studied anything about brachiosaur knows to be false. They have, so far, out lived every single thing on this planet within its major role, except perhaps crocodiles, in terms of time on earth. I sincerely doubt that a creature so adapted and so successful would burst internally when it reached depths of ten feet. Especially since the characteristics of brachiosaur and other sauropods have alot in common with hippos and elephants and probably needed to keep its skin moist and protected from sunlight.
Brachiosaur was no more intelligent than a retarded infant cow and this was because it had very, very little need for much blood (or blood pressure) in its head. Allowing it to reach whatever heights the treetops were or walk through a lake up to its nose with his neck fully extended, it's even possible that you could restrict all blood flow to the brachiosaur's head for several hours (perhaps days) before permanent brain damage let alone brain death. The nose on a brachiosaur is on the top of their head and we can find exact copies of this design in marine mammals who use their top-side nose to take breaths of air while staying submerged. Again, not unlike a hippo with its raised protruding nostrils or an elephant who uses its nose like a snorkle. The brachiosaur was very much an amphibious animal as are other sauropods with explains the variations of plesiosauria which reached sizes of blue whale proportions.
So, taking the house cat and blowing it up to sizes of 50 feet from the nose to tail would make a house cat that cant move, however the largest cat in existence is the 'cave lion' at around 12 feet long I think. If you blew up a house cat to these proportions its long legs would have a hard time to be sure, but as the animal struggles to move, hunt, etc it will essentially grow stronger just like a human body builder packing on lean muscle. So, a huge 12 foot long incredibly muscular house cat is not impossible, in fact that's what a cave lion is (one of the 'true' prehistoric cats and not a marsupial or cat-like mammal). So, if you took an animal that is already prepared structurally for massive weight (a bengal tiger) you could probably get that sucker up to 20, maybe 30 feet or so and still have a fully functioning tiger, if only after it gains more muscle. In fact looking at the largest land mammal in existence Baluchitherium who was basically a giant hornless rhino and terratorial as all get out could probably fit a good mold for our giant cat. That total brings our cat to 16 feet tall, 27 feet long and over 13 tons of warm-blooded, fast moving predatory horror. Almost the same size as the house cat from the Incredible Shrinking Man.... almost. Though it would look nothing like a house cat and more like a stocky psuedo-cat.
The Ants in them may be an impossibility if the ants were indeed scaled up regular ants, however there are scorpions and psudoscorpions around ten feet long - about the size of the ants in Them, meaning that it's not only possible that a ant-type insect could exist at that size, but in fact it did. And it walked around on land and would have overthrown entire governments had they existed. And I can guarantee you that throwing a brick at a ten foot scorpion's legs would do little more than piss him off.
Inch-high people or microscopic people may be an impossibility but we know for a fact that a human being (adult) can exist at 20 inches from head to toe, in fact we also know that a human being can exist (with fully functioning organs, a conscious state, etc) at 4 inches long at birth and weigh less than 9 ounces. In fact there have been babies (who survived in to adulthood) recorded at 500 GRAMS and about 3 inches from head to toe. But we dont have to stick to humans, there's plenty of other mammalia out there. How about the hog nosed bat that is about an inch long and weighs 2 grams (at its adult size)? but since we're talking about just sheer existence: Most bacteriology textbooks say Mycoplasma genitalium is the smallest known organism capable of independent growth and reproduction. Its size is given as 0.2 to 0.3 µm (micrometers). A µm is one millionth of a meter (or one thousandth of a millimeter). An average bacterium, like E. coli, is about 1 µm by 3 µm (it has a rod shape). A red blood cell is 8 µm in diameter and the average human cell is about 25 µm across.
Although mycoplasma can live in complex media in the laboratory, in nature they are always found living parasitically, attached to other cells. Since they take preformed nutrients from other cells, they have streamlined their metabolism and only have about 470 genes to use to make all the proteins needed for cell division, energy production, and protein synthesis, etc. These are the simplest cells found so far.
Other small bacteria are rickettsia and chlamydia which can be as small as 0.3 µm. But it's a big world, and probably fewer than 1% of the total bacterial strains have been characterized. That means there are many bacteria that have never been seen, or have been poorly studied. For instance, the marine ultramicrobacteria, Shingomonas sp strain RB2256, has been reported to be able to pass through a 0.22 µm ultrafilter. It should be noted that many bacteria, in response to starvation, go to a dormant state of much smaller size.
(http://www.nas.edu/ssb/nanopanel2delong.htm). It is not clear how many of these "ultramicrobacteria" represent nutrient downsized bacteria.
In 1990, Bob Folk at UT, using an electron microscope, observed 0.05 µm (50 nanometers) "nanobacteria" in rocks from hot springs. Nanobacteria were later found in blood, kidney stones, and in meteorites that came from Mars. Of course, this created quite a stir. But other researchers have not been able to find DNA or protein in nanobacteria, and it may be that the objects seen in the electron microscope are mineral microcrystals. Because of this, many experts doubt the existence of nanobacteria (see Nature (2000) 408, p394). But, supporters continue looking for evidence that nanobacteria are living.
A theoretical discussion of what could be the smallest bacterium possible gives a diameter of 0.17 µm http://www.nas.edu/ssb/nanopanel2adams.htm. This figure also precludes the possibility of nanobacteria. This nas nanopanel site has an excellent series of articles on the size limits of organisms.
Viruses are DNA or RNA that are unable to "live" without invading another cell and they use the molecular machinery of the host cell for metabolism and replication. "Are viruses alive?" is a philosophical question. They certainly have a life cycle and many would say that they are alive when they are infecting a cell. But whether they are alive or not, they don't have to carry around all the genes needed for an independent existence. Therefore, viruses can be very small, from 0.3 µm to 0.02 µm, or 300 to 20 nanometers (nm) in size. Picorna ("little RNA") viruses, like polio, are only 30 nm in diameter. Other viruses, like Parvoviruses, are just a linear single strand of DNA in a capsid with no extra proteins. Parvovirus DNA can be less than 5000 nucleotides long and the Parvoviruses can be as small as 20 nm in size. http://spot.colorado.edu/~schmidts/micro23-2000.html
And then there are viroids. Viroids are small circular single strands of RNA that lack a protein coat. To date, they have been shown to only cause plant diseases. Their RNA can be as short as 248 nucleotides long (80,000 molecular weight), which can be less than 10 nm diameter. http://www.res.bbsrc.ac.uk/mirror/auz/Ictv/fs_viroi.htm
What about prions? Prions are thought to be infectious protein particles that cause several diseases in humans and animals, including Mad Cow Disease. The latest theory is that Prions recruit proteins similar to themselves in the membranes of brain cells. By lining up next to these proteins, they cause a conformational change that converts these brain proteins into Prion proteins, which are about 30,000 molecular weight, or about 5 nm. (These proteins can't be broken down by the cell, so they form aggregates that clog the cell.) It might be a stretch to say that prions are alive, but for completeness, here they are. Somewhere from prions to bacteria you can say life starts, and there are the sizes.
So now lets reverse things: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/hokkan...kanen.html
That should shed some more education on the matter of how big is big and what's possible. Conclusion is that a brachiosaur 5 times its size and mass based on average can exist. Do the math on that one, it makes any movie monster a knee-high threat.
But to get back to my original point: If you approach Planet Dook Dook for any reason we'll use your uerthra as a bottle opener. Oh, and then my elephant-sized lion will pounce the length of 8 school busses on to your hapless body. Or the mile-long snake might get you first, who's to say.
Anyway, tons of little errors and lots of trivial comparisons to tubes and straws and supposed ideals of movie monsters. If the author wanted to prove that movie monsters and special effects aren't realistic I think he may have been underestimating his audience.
But I did find it funny that he mentions the character construction of ET and fails to mention where ET got his eyes.