Critiquing Dune 2: Neil deGrasse Tyson Points Out a Flaw in Sandworm Physics

Critiquing Dune 2: Neil deGrasse Tyson Points Out a Flaw in Sandworm Physics

Dune 2's global success reaches $189 million as Neil deGrasse Tyson dissects a physics flaw in the iconic Sandworms.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out a major issue with the sandworms in Dune 2. The renowned physicist is known for critiquing science fiction movies for their scientific inaccuracies. In this case, he has turned his attention to Dune: Part Two and how the movements of the sandworms on Arrakis go against the laws of physics. You can hear his comments at around 2:50 of a clip from The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.

The Fremen, the native people of the desert, have a unique tradition where they must ride on the back of a sandworm as a rite of passage. This is not just any ordinary worm, it moves fast in a straight line. It's like trying to outrun a snake that doesn't slither from side to side but moves forward in a straight line. The key is in the way they curl and then push off that curl to move forward. That's the secret of riding the sandworm successfully.

Youtube video: Is “Dune” A Perfect Movie? Neil deGrasse Tyson And Stephen Colbert Agree To Disagree

More to come...

Editor's P/S:

Neil deGrasse Tyson's critique of Dune 2's sandworm movements highlights the importance of scientific accuracy in science fiction. While the film's visuals may be stunning, the unrealistic portrayal of the worms undermines the plausibility of the story. Tyson's analysis serves as a reminder that even in fictional worlds, adherence to scientific principles can enhance the viewer's experience and suspend their disbelief.

Furthermore, the article's exploration of the Fremen's tradition of sandworm riding raises questions about the potential impacts of cultural practices on scientific knowledge. The Fremen's belief in the importance of riding the sandworms may have influenced their perception of the creatures' movements, leading to the acceptance of inaccurate representations. This suggests that cultural perspectives can shape our understanding of the natural world and that scientific inquiry must always consider the potential for bias and cultural influences.