Since the release of the first science fiction film A Trip to the Moon in 1902 it is fair to say the genre has become one of the biggest sources of scientific knowledge for the general public. Sometimes that knowledge is accurate. Sometimes it is wildly misleading. Let us look at a few famous examples.

Beyond its epic story, the film impressed scientists with how accurately it portrayed some of the universe’s strangest physics. Working with physicist Kip Thorn,e the team rendered the black hole Gargantua using real relativistic equations and even created custom software to simulate how light bends and swirls around a spinning black hole. The result was so precise that it genuinely impressed the scientific community.

Interstellar also gets time dilation right. Near Gargantua gravity warps spacetime so severely that one hour on a nearby planet equals seven years on Earth. This is not movie nonsense. It is Einstein’s general relativity in action which predicts that clocks in stronger gravitational fields tick more slowly.

While Gravity dazzled audiences with stunning visuals and constant tension its depiction of orbital distances and space travel took some serious liberties. Sandra Bullock’s character moves between the Hubble Space Telescope the International Space Station and the Tiangong station as if they are neighbors. In reality these spacecraft orbit hundreds of miles apart on very different paths. Reaching one from another would require careful planning significant fuel and days of maneuvering not a quick jump.

The film also makes astronaut movement look effortless. Characters zip around with handheld thrusters grabbing rails while spinning at thousands of miles per hour. In reality even tiny velocity changes require planning strong thrusters and fuel. Space travel is not like swimming. It is governed by extremely unforgiving physics.

Ridley Scott’s The Martian stands out as one of the most scientifically grounded science fiction films in recent years. Its portrayal of orbital mechanics and survival on Mars earned praise from engineers and scientists alike. The film shows how every major decision depends on precise orbital windows which are brief periods when Earth and Mars align correctly.

The botany is equally impressive. Mark Watney’s potato farm is not pure fantasy. With a sealed temperature controlled habitat water created through chemical reactions and nutrient rich soil plants could theoretically grow on Mars. This idea is supported by real studies using simulated Martian soil.

Bruce Willis no hard feelings but Armageddon is famously inaccurate. NASA has even used it in training exercises where employees are asked to spot the errors. There are more than one hundred and fifty of them. One of the biggest is the idea that a single nuclear bomb could split a Texas sized asteroid. In reality even a massive explosion would be tiny compared to the energy required and would likely turn the asteroid into many dangerous fragments still headed toward Earth.

The film also ignores basic physics during the asteroid liftoff scene. The spacecraft rises smoothly as if gravity barely exists. Even a small asteroid presents serious challenges. Thrust would need to be carefully controlled to avoid spinning the vehicle or blasting debris into space. Acceleration would be sudden and violent. The easy liftoff looks cool but scientifically it is nonsense.

So the next time a movie claims you can outrun an explosion in space or grow crops with duct tape and confidence you will know when to applaud the science and when to call nonsense. Enjoy the movies. Just do not use them as a study guide for physics orbital mechanics or planetary defense.

Meet the so called “immortal jellyfish” Turritopsis dohrnii. Unlike most creatures this tiny jellyfish can revert from its adult form back to its juvenile stage through a process called transdifferentiation essentially hitting a biological reset button. In theory this means it could repeat its life cycle indefinitely and avoid aging making it one of nature’s most curious experiments in longevity.