Scientific Inaccuracies and Plot Holes in : Revisiting the Consistencies and Contrivances

While the TV series : has garnered a significant following, it has also faced criticism for its scientific inaccuracies and plot holes. These inconsistencies can detract from the viewing experience and challenge the credibility of the story. Let's delve into some of the specific areas where the show falls short in terms of both science and storytelling.

Scientific Inaccuracies

1. Gravity and Acceleration

The illusion of immediate zero gravity: One of the most glaring scientific inaccuracies in the show occurs during scenes of ship acceleration and deceleration. For instance, when ships stop accelerating, characters are shown to experience zero gravity instantly. However, the reality would involve a gradual decrease in acceleration and a corresponding change in the perceived gravity experienced by crew members. This immediate transition to zero gravity is unrealistic given the physical principles of inertia. (Example: During missions involving rapid adjustments in speed, the show does not effectively simulate the gradual changes in perceived weight that would occur.)

2. Space Combat

Unrealistic maneuvers: Introduced are many combat scenes that involve maneuvers that would be impractical in real space. These scenes often emphasize the effects of inertia and Newton’s laws, but the practicalities of distance, communication delays, and the time required for projectiles to travel are often overlooked. In real space combat, the vast distances and vast amounts of time required for action to occur would make such swift and precise maneuvers unlikely. (Example: Space vessels dodging enemy fire with split-second precision defies the realistic challenges of traveling through the vacuum of space.)

3. Sound in Space

The vacuum of space: Another consistent issue is the depiction of sound in space. While the show generally avoids showing sound in the vacuum of space, there are moments where sound effects are used during space battles, which would not occur in a true vacuum. This inconsistency can break the immersion and believability of the show, as the absence of sound is a well-established fact in space travel. (Example: Explosions and energy discharges are shown with sound in the vacuum of space, which does not align with scientific knowledge.)

4. Atmospheric Reentry

Exaggerated conditions: The depiction of atmospheric reentry is another area where the show takes significant liberties with reality. During reentry, ships are shown to withstand extreme conditions without proper heat shielding or other protective measures, which is not consistent with the realities of space travel. This exaggeration can undermine the authenticity of the show and make it appear unrealistic. (Example: During reentry sequences, the show portrays ships surviving brutal reentry conditions without the necessary safety measures to protect crew and equipment.)

Plot Holes

1. The Protomolecule

Unclear origin and capabilities: The protomolecule, a central plot element, suffers from inconsistencies in its origin and capabilities. While the show creates a mysterious and powerful entity, the explanations for how it interacts with different life forms and technology often feel contrived. The protomolecule's behavior and origins are not fully explained, leading to moments where its effects seem arbitrary and unrealistic. (Example: The protomolecule’s interaction with humans, aliens, and technology is inconsistent and poorly motivated, making it difficult to believe its all-powerful nature.)

2. Character Decisions

Poorly motivated actions: Some character decisions and actions, particularly in high-stakes scenarios, can seem inconsistent or poorly motivated, leading to moments that feel forced or contrived for plot advancement. This lack of realism can make the story feel less engaging and less believable for the audience. (Example: A character’s sudden and unexplained decision to take a risky action can undermine the plausibility of the narrative arc.)

3. Resource Management

Unrealistic logistics: The show’s portrayal of resource management in space colonies, such as the Belt and Mars, often seems unrealistic. The availability of water and food, for instance, appears inconsistent with the harsh realities of space colonization. This inconsistency can detract from the overall believability of the setting and make the story less immersive. (Example: scenes where characters have access to an abundance of resources when those conditions would be highly unlikely in space.)

4. The Timeline of Events

Unrealistic pacing: The timing of certain events, especially in relation to travel between planets and stations, can sometimes feel rushed or unrealistic given the distances involved. The show doesn’t always adequately address the significant travel times required for space missions, which can make the narrative feel disjointed or unrealistic. (Example: characters traveling between planets in a matter of hours vs. the actual months or years it would take in real space travel.)

Conclusion

While the show : aims to create a thrilling and immersive universe, it sometimes falls short in terms of scientific accuracy and plot consistency. These issues can detract from the overall quality of the series and challenge the audience's suspension of disbelief. Ironing out these inaccuracies and plot holes could help to enhance the realism and engagement of the story, making for a more satisfying experience for viewers.

It is important for creators to balance the need for dramatic storytelling with the realistic portrayal of science to maintain the integrity and believability of their worlds. By addressing these areas, the show can move closer to creating a more seamless and immersive experience for its audience.