Clarke's Third Law in relation to "Wonder Woman" (2017)?

[hbenthow]

There are some (including myself) who feel that mashing up a science fiction universe (such as one in which Superman and the Flash exist) with straight-up fantasy (magic and the like) tends not to work well unless the magic is implied to be super-science so advanced that it appears to be magic to those who don't understand it. As Arthur C. Clarke explained, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This explanation was used in Marvel Studio's Thor movies, and it helped keep the MCU feeling consistent.

However, based on early reports, it sounds as if "Wonder Woman" is not using the Clarke's Third Law explanation for the Amazons, Ares, etc; instead presenting the characters and powers involved in the story as though Greek mythology is more or less accurate as-is.

Does anyone know if the movie is made in such a way that whether or not the "magic" and "gods" involved are actually in some way related to super-science (or alien DNA, or something else of that nature) is left ambiguous enough that a viewer could believe a Clarke's Third Law explanation for what is happening, even though the characters in the movie itself do not?

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I don't know but I don't have any problem with magic being in the DCEU, whether it be in Wonder Woman, Dark Universe (JLD), or whatever - plus we've already had Enchantress and her brother in Suicide Squad. Magic/sorcery/gods exist side by side with science in the comics - I'm fine with it being that way on the big screen too.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

While I get the fanboy need for "consistency" it's always come off as really, really pedantic at times. Super hero universes are gestalt creations drawing from various fictional sources to create worlds that encompass great variety. Vampires, aliens, cyborgs, mages, immortals, alternate universes, time travel, mythical monsters, gods, demons, mutation, cosmic deities... they have in Marvel and D.C. comics, existed side by side with both distinct magesteria as well as some overlap. Some around here act as though when one says that in fiction magic should be rule bound and have limits but be ultimately unknowable and distinct from the techno-babble filled super science of comic book based fiction that it means that those that say it think that applies to the actual real world. Which is, like... Nuts. But yes, in fictional worlds such as the Marvel Universe and the DC Universe as seen in comics and in the live action or animated adaptations I am firmly in the camp that thinks the two should be different as well as believing that the vast, vast, vast majority of the audience doesn't really want or need some pseudo-scientific explanation delving into quantum physics or the like to understand or accept "magic" in a fictional universe, whether side by side with "super science" (which breaks all kinds of real world scientific laws all the time) or by itself alongside a world that is essentially like our own.

No one had their experience of the Harry Potter films lessened because every single bit of bat guano crazy magic wasn't given some underpinning of scientific explanation. No one, despite George Lucas shoe horning it into the prequel trilogy, was asking for an explanation of the Force which existed side by side with hyperdrives, blasters and force fields, which required it to be tied into some aspect of biology. It was a successful franchise before that addition and it's a successful one now with that idea being essentially put to the side now.

Does that mean magic in fiction should have no limits or rules? Could it be injected into just any setting and just be accepted? No and no, of course. On Star Trek the world has occasionally brought characters into which at first glance might be "magical" but the franchise has always had scientific explanations for everything. It's a Sci Fi world (though not say a Hard Science Fiction universe). Q is a character from a higher state of being and even he on the show couched his doings with pseudo scientific talk. Would we accept a Terminator like cyborg in the Harry Potter universe? While it's not really a stretch to say why can't you have a scientifically explained cybernetic character in a world with flying broomsticks, the whole point of the series is that it has magic as a real force within a mundane world that mirrors our own.

Lastly can I just state I don't quite get what the approach of putting the mystical into pseudo scientific terms really accomplishes for these types of stories. Sure, THOR1 had that dialog by Thor talking about the magic/science divide and making it a matter of perspective... And? It's not essential to anything else in the plot really. Cut that out and what changes really happen in the storyline? I suggest not one single thing. Also, they never elucidate the specifics of how Asgardian technology works anyway. Loki waves his hands and the Casket of Ancient Winters just appears and disappears. Thor is reunited with his hammer and his costume arrives out of thin air. Heimdell can literally see across the vastness of the universe with his eyes... And not once is the mechanism of these things laid out. No talk of nanotechnology, matter to energy conversions or the like. The closest is the presentation of the Rainbow Bridge, which comes across as some type of device. But that's about it. Way more is frankly, magical. Odin "enchants" the hammmer with mere words, and it's an incredibly specific and values, VALUES mind you, based enchantment. This isn't just saying the hammer cannot be lifted due to it's control of gravity or some such. It's conceptual, moral, character based. I don't know how you scientifically explain a hammer making a values judgement about "worthiness" and... I don't need it. Did anyone more fully buy into the story because the scene of Thor's explanation allowed you to think that the enchantment was really just a really advanced manifestation of some kind of, I don't know, cosmic level artificial intelligence?

Now, if we do go with just an acceptance of the gestalt idea is everything as clean cut and tied up in a bow like say the science and magic is the same concept? No. But I don't think a unified field theory of fictional super heroes is what anyone is going to these films for either.

 

[jfurioso]

Yeah, sometimes it is better to just let a cigar be a cigar.

I remember how people like Byrne tried in the 80s to add depth to the supposedly absurd powers of Superman by postulating a near-skin force field and implying psionic of gravitic effects. All in order to answer some questions that came out regularly about why some things worked the way they did regarding his powers. And much of what was achieved was just to add an additional level of remove to the violations of physics, because after a while, you could ask many more new questions about the implications of those so-called explanations, that brought their own problems with contradictions or impossibilities.

Also, there was a time back in the day, when some uppity student wrote to the Superman office complaining about the then-current ability of Superman to travel faster than light in order to time-travel, as that was a violation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The editor replied that Relativity was a theory, but in the world of comics, Superman's powers were a fact.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.
No one, despite George Lucas shoe horning it into the prequel trilogy, was asking for an explanation of the Force which existed side by side with hyperdrives, blasters and force fields, which required it to be tied into some aspect of biology. It was a successful franchise before that addition and it's a successful one now with that idea being essentially put to the side now.

Star Wars is a nice example. I'm not a huge fan/regular watcher admittedly, but whenever I have given any thought to that universe I've always seen the Force as mystical in nature and just accepted that it exists alongside the science of that world.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Also, there was a time back in the day, when some uppity student wrote to the Superman office complaining about the then-current ability of Superman to travel faster than light in order to time-travel, as that was a violation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The editor replied that Relativity was a theory, but in the world of comics, Superman's powers were a fact.

 

[GothamBat]

I honestly really hate when shows or movies pretend the supernatural powers and entities can be explained through scientific and empirical means, and then it isn't actually done in the story.

It feels like it should extend a sense of verisimilitude to the magic and make it feel more authentic and real but really, to me at least, it does the opposite of making it feel organic and comes off as a poor attempt to inject quasi-realism into the proceedings due to the writers not committing to supplementing that claim and instead, only lazily shrugging their shoulders and saying "it makes sense, you just don't get it".

It's much better to make a clear distinction and allow it to be it's own system with a whole new framework because that doesn't proclude rationale and systematization. Something you wouldn't be able to have by pretending it fits right in with our reality, because you've written yourself into a corner and confined yourself to applied science within the boundaries of the laws of nature and physics.

Magic being it's own system with which one can manipulate matter, forces and energies makes more sense. With the user being limited by rituals, spoken words, actions or weapons/items to access the power. It's it's own system used to control, distort and alter scientific law and therefore manipulate the physical world and the whole of reality in specific ways that can be explained and shown without pretentiously and lazily being told it's grounded in reality when it so clearly isn't.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Also, we've seen that Batman's world has suddenly gotten a whole lot smaller and his universe a whole lot bigger; I'd like it if the same could be said of Superman's - and I think coming to terms with actual gods and other genuine supernatural entities would do that!

 

[Micromind]

There are some (including myself) who feel that mashing up a science fiction universe (such as one in which Superman and the Flash exist) with straight-up fantasy (magic and the like) tends not to work well unless the magic is implied to be super-science so advanced that it appears to be magic to those who don't understand it. As Arthur C. Clarke explained, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This explanation was used in Marvel Studio's Thor movies, and it helped keep the MCU feeling consistent.

However, based on early reports, it sounds as if "Wonder Woman" is not using the Clarke's Third Law explanation for the Amazons, Ares, etc; instead presenting the characters and powers involved in the story as though Greek mythology is more or less accurate as-is.

Does anyone know if the movie is made in such a way that whether or not the "magic" and "gods" involved are actually in some way related to super-science (or alien DNA, or something else of that nature) is left ambiguous enough that a viewer could believe a Clarke's Third Law explanation for what is happening, even though the characters in the movie itself do not?

This is how DC Universe does it (similar to how DC Comics handles things like this.) All types of Mythologies and Magic exist in DC comics. Greek Gods are not "Alien Entities" or misunderstood "Advanced technological race".

The concept itself can be derived from DC's "Multiverse", which could be linked to (ambiguously) to concept of Parallel Universes as predicted by Quantum Physics.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This is how DC Universe does it (similar to how DC Comics handles things like this.) All types of Mythologies and Magic exist in DC comics. Greek Gods are not "Alien Entities" or misunderstood "Advanced technological race".

The concept itself can be derived from DC's "Multiverse", which could be linked to (ambiguously) to concept of Parallel Universes as predicted by Quantum Physics.

I hope that will be the case but... I think it's still early as to how it's going to come across in the films right now to be definitive at all.

They well could make there being some kind of connection to the various mythologies and say, the beings of Apokalips and New Genesis. For all we know, they could have it that Zeus and Highfather are one and the same. They still could go the route of defining magic as simply another type of science that is unknown widely on Earth. I would be against that but I am not sure we can say that the DCEU will for sure have there be a distinction. As seen online the idea of streamlining these stories to wrap things up in a nice bow has an allure both for creators and fans.

 

[hbenthow]

I hope that will be the case but... I think it's still early as to how it's going to come across in the films right now to be definitive at all.

They well could make there being some kind of connection to the various mythologies and say, the beings of Apokalips and New Genesis. For all we know, they could have it that Zeus and Highfather are one and the same. They still could go the route of defining magic as simply another type of science that is unknown widely on Earth. I would be against that but I am not sure we can say that the DCEU will for sure have there be a distinction. As seen online the idea of streamlining these stories to wrap things up in a nice bow has an allure both for creators and fans.

So, do you think that it would be correct at this point to say that the section of my original post quoted below could be answered with a yes?

"Does anyone know if the movie is made in such a way that whether or not the "magic" and "gods" involved are actually in some way related to super-science (or alien DNA, or something else of that nature) is left ambiguous enough that a viewer could believe a Clarke's Third Law explanation for what is happening, even though the characters in the movie itself do not?"

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

So, do you think that it would be correct at this point to say that the section of my original post quoted below could be answered with a yes?

"Does anyone know if the movie is made in such a way that whether or not the "magic" and "gods" involved are actually in some way related to super-science (or alien DNA, or something else of that nature) is left ambiguous enough that a viewer could believe a Clarke's Third Law explanation for what is happening, even though the characters in the movie itself do not?"

I don't think it's clear EITHER way right now. I and most others haven't seen WW to judge on how they present the "gods" and "magic" from the mythos of Wonder Woman. There's also how the DCEU has already gotten a sorceress in the mix with Enchantress and they didn't couch any of that with technobabble or the like. That all came off like "magic" and yet there isn't anything to say yet what will be established in JL or Aquaman.

I do ask again why this matters in the end though? Is the lack of a Third Law aspect to "explain" things in a scientific way an actual detriment? If there was no wiggle room would that ruin the story or the suspension of disbelief in any way? I mean, we are dealing with a fictional universe where there are totally human looking aliens. Where men get struck by lightning and don't die but instead gain super powers. None of that is strictly adhering to pure science at all. Why hold mysticism to a standard that the sci fi concepts themselves don't seem to be beholden to?

Is this wiggle room, the possibility that it all has an explanation that falls in line with a pseudo scientific rationale the only way you will accept or enjoy the premise of WW or any other character in a super hero world?

 

[hbenthow]

I do ask again why this matters in the end though? Is the lack of a Third Law aspect to "explain" things in a scientific way an actual detriment? If there was no wiggle room would that ruin the story or the suspension of disbelief in any way? I mean, we are dealing with a fictional universe where there are totally human looking aliens. Where men get struck by lightning and don't die but instead gain super powers. None of that is strictly adhering to pure science at all. Why hold mysticism to a standard that the sci fi concepts themselves don't seem to be beholden to?

It's hard to explain, but I guess I have a very "compartmentalized" mind, and also a way or analyzing the implications of just about everything either real or fictional (sometimes even beyond the point that I'm comfortable with). There's a theory referred to as "One Big Lie", which posits that it's generally best to keep the number of different science fiction concepts within one property to a minimum for suspension of disbelief purposes. I suppose that I ascribe to a variant version that, instead of opposing multiple science fiction concepts mixed together, is leery of mixing science fiction (even ridiculously soft science fiction) and pure fantasy except in rare exceptions.

Plus (and this is perhaps the bigger issue for me and my ultra-analytic mind), once you introduce gods into a fictional universe, you open up the can of worms known as "religious matters". In "Thor: The Dark World", Odin (answering a question that had already been answered by implication in the preceding movie) tells Loki, "We are not gods. We's born, we live, we die, just as humans do." The question is no sooner raised than it is put out of sight and out of mind. For humans in the MCU to be worshiping Asgardians is purely a based on primitive misunderstanding, because they're merely long-living, powerful people from another planet, with no claim to deity.

But in the DCEU, the religious implications of the Greek gods are still up in the air. Are these merely powerful beings like any other, or (for the sake of argument) should Bruce Wayne be praying to Zeus? These "wormy" questions are raised (and likely left permanently unanswered) by a straight-up "the Greek myths are true" approach, when they could easily be sidestepped with the Clarke's Third Law explanation.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It's hard to explain, but I guess I have a very "compartmentalized" mind, and also a way or analyzing the implications of just about everything either real or fictional (sometimes even beyond the point that I'm comfortable with). There's a theory referred to as "One Big Lie", which posits that it's generally best to keep the number of different science fiction concepts within one property to a minimum for suspension of disbelief purposes. I suppose that I ascribe to a variant version that, instead of opposing multiple science fiction concepts mixed together, is leery of mixing science fiction (even ridiculously soft science fiction) and pure fantasy except in rare exceptions.

Plus (and this is perhaps the bigger issue for me and my ultra-analytic mind), once you introduce gods into a fictional universe, you open up the can of worms known as "religious matters". In "Thor: The Dark World", Odin (answering a question that had already been answered by implication in the preceding movie) tells Loki, "We are not gods. We's born, we live, we die, just as humans do." The question is no sooner raised than it is put out of sight and out of mind. For humans in the MCU to be worshiping Asgardians is purely a based on primitive misunderstanding, because they're merely long-living, powerful people from another planet, with no claim to deity.

But in the DCEU, the religious implications of the Greek gods are still up in the air. Are these merely powerful beings like any other, or (for the sake of argument) should Bruce Wayne be praying to Zeus? These "wormy" questions are raised (and likely left permanently unanswered) by a straight-up "the Greek myths are true" approach, when they could easily be sidestepped with the Clarke's Third Law explanation.

Have you been a reader of the Marvel/DC comics, might I ask?

 

[hbenthow]

Have you been a reader of the Marvel/DC comics, might I ask?

Yes, but mostly the Golden Age and Silver Age versions and a few modern one-offs and alternate-universe stories. I'm particularly a fan of pre-1970s (and especially pre-Comics Code) comics, much more so than the modern ones. A huge chunk of my comics collection is made up of Golden Age omnibuses.

Most of my knowledge of more modern comics is from Wikipedia and Internet forums.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yes, but mostly the Golden Age and Silver Age versions and a few modern one-offs and alternate-universe stories. I'm particularly a fan of pre-1970s (and especially pre-Comics Code) comics, much more so than the modern ones. A huge chunk of my comics collection is made up of Golden Age omnibuses.

Most of my knowledge of more modern comics is from Wikipedia and Internet forums.

Interesting since there was far less rationalizing back then when it came to fantasy concepts in the comics of Marvel and DC. A lot of stuff was just presented to be accepted at face value with often no in depth examination of any underpinnings.

It's funny you bring up implications. While I do think those sorts of story elements could be used to elevate the narratives by getting into the idea of what super beings standing in society would be, I have my own personal nit pick about the science fiction aspects of these films which I still set aside for the sake of enjoyment of the story, as well simply tamping down my own inner persnickety fan. See for me, take a look at the Arc Reactors used in the MCU by Tony Stark. In the year 2008 Tony Stark comes up with a brand new energy technology and as a super hero proves it's effectiveness and reliability again and again. So... Why isn't the world of the MCU radically different? Aren't there huge implications regarding the Arc Reactor? Shouldn't this totally reliable method of power be changing the face of the MCU Earth, very quickly and for that matter, unpredictably? And yet, despite that rational view the world is more or less a mirror of our own. But by all rights it really shouldn't be.

In the end though... I pay those implications no heed. The starting point, a world where a Tony Stark can make a powered armor with "repulsor" tech, Bruce Banner doesn't die from an over dose of radiation and a knowledge of genetic engineering surpassing anything we have now existing in the early 1940's so as to produce the Super Soldier Serum, is already pretty thick with the suspension of disbelief along with a healthy dose of leaps of logic about how these things would really play out in the real world.

Is it great when these flights of fancy can ground themselves so as to give more weight to the fantasy? For myself I would say yes. But... I don't absolutely need them. Start pulling at certain threads and the whole sweater comes apart. That's my view, anyway.

 

[hbenthow]

Interesting since there was far less rationalizing back then when it came to fantasy concepts in the comics of Marvel and DC. A lot of stuff was just presented to be accepted at face value with often no in depth examination of any underpinnings.

Up to a point, but their relative lack of emphasis on continuity means that something odd and nagging in one issue is often of no concern in the next.

It's funny you bring up implications. While I do think those sorts of story elements could be used to elevate the narratives by getting into the idea of what super beings standing in society would be, I have my own personal nit pick about the science fiction aspects of these films which I still set aside for the sake of enjoyment of the story, as well simply tamping down my own inner persnickety fan. See for me, take a look at the Arc Reactors used in the MCU by Tony Stark. In the year 2008 Tony Stark comes up with a brand new energy technology and as a super hero proves it's effectiveness and reliability again and again. So... Why isn't the world of the MCU radically different? Aren't there huge implications regarding the Arc Reactor? Shouldn't this totally reliable method of power be changing the face of the MCU Earth, very quickly and for that matter, unpredictably? And yet, despite that rational view the world is more or less a mirror of our own. But by all rights it really shouldn't be.

Ah, so I'm not the only one who does it!

I don't recall thinking of the implications for the arc reactor's existence too much, though, although it did cross my mind. I think that I'm somewhat selective about which concepts nag me, although it's more a matter of them selecting me rather than me selecting them.

The implications that I tend to get most caught up in are usually the more metaphysical, ethical, moral, paradoxical, etc, matters (rather than technological or scientific ones). For instance, a radioactive spider bite turning Peter Parker into Spider-Man is something that I just "go along with", and don't overthink too much. (Certain ideas such as "is he technically still human", "might he develop monstrous effects from the transformation later in life", etc, might pop up in my mind, but I tend to dismiss them.) But the existence of his daughter Mayday Parker sends my "implication-sensing" mind into overdrive. ("Wouldn't Peter get himself or Mary Jane sterilized to avoid having children, as he has no way of knowing that a child of his won't be a half-spider monster?" "Does conceiving Mayday with Mary Jane without knowing whether the resulting child will even be human make him irresponsible, and thus in violation of his code?" And so on, to the point that I outright dislike the concept of Mayday Parker's existence.)

Is it great when these flights of fancy can ground themselves so as to give more weight to the fantasy? For myself I would say yes. But... I don't absolutely need them. Start pulling at certain threads and the whole sweater comes apart. That's my view, anyway.

I feel that way too - up a point. I'm a big believer in suspension of disbelief, and am of the C. S. Lewis school of thought* when it comes to escapism. But certain concepts are just so ripe with niggling implications that I can't help but be taken out of the story by them.

* "Hence the uneasiness which they arouse in those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep us wholly imprisoned in the immediate conflict. That perhaps is why people are so ready with the charge of "escape." I never fully understood it till my friend Professor Tolkien asked me the very simple question, "What class of men would you expect to be most preoccupied with, and hostile to, the idea of escape?" and gave the obvious answer: jailers." - C. S. Lewis

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

^Great quote.

 

[Dr.]

IMO, there is a conceptual problem - generally speaking - in combining the sci-fi and fantasy/magic genres.

But when it comes to superheroes (specifically), the situation is more muddled. I.e., we’re usually not talking about hard sci-fi - more like “science fantasy.” Thus, even characters with an ostensible “science-origin” are so utterly fanciful that distinguishing them from their more magical counterparts is dubious. (E.g., Superman’s “science-y” heat vision isn’t any more realistic than Wonder Woman’s “magic-y” Lasso of Truth.)

Bottom line: I think most fans forgive the “logic” problems that arise out of mixing mythologies and genres - just as they (more broadly) forgive the issues that arise out of the “shared universe” concept. Nothing to see here - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Also, there was a time back in the day, when some uppity student wrote to the Superman office complaining about the then-current ability of Superman to travel faster than light in order to time-travel, as that was a violation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The editor replied that Relativity was a theory, but in the world of comics, Superman's powers were a fact.

Classic misunderstanding of the term. A scientific theory is a coherent and robust explanation of a phenomenon - it’s not a guess.

Also - being able to exceed the speed of light isn’t an “engineering problem” that Superman’s powers could conceivably overcome; it’s barrier imposed by logic. And not even God can stymie logic.

 

[Micromind]

The editor replied that Relativity was a theory, but in the world of comics, Superman's powers were a fact.

Theory as in unproven theory ? Because it's not an unproven theory, enough proof exists about the validity of Theory of Relativity.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

IMO, there is a conceptual problem - generally speaking - in combining the sci-fi and fantasy/magic genres.

But when it comes to superheroes (specifically), the situation is more muddled. I.e., we’re usually not talking about hard sci-fi - more like “science fantasy.” Thus, even characters with an ostensible “science-origin” are so utterly fanciful that distinguishing them from their more magical counterparts is dubious. (E.g., Superman’s “science-y” heat vision isn’t any more realistic than Wonder Woman’s “magic-y” Lasso of Truth.)

I agree with that. Would I want actual magic to turn up in movies like Close Encounters, Twelve Monkeys, or Predestination? No. But in something like the DCU/DCEU, or - as someone mentioned earlier, Star Wars - I don't have any problem with it.

 

[jfurioso]

Well, you can get some people supporting string theory or loop quantum theory into discussion and see how robust and well founded each finds the other.

The thing about the student making that criticism is that it is not just pedantic, it is a demonstration of limited intelligence, of the narrow-minded inability of distinguishing between reality and fantasy and dealing with contradiction. Because as I mentioned, there is no use in trying to come up with explanations like gravitic lensing to explain superpowers as they exist in the comics, because ultimately it just creates further layers of obfuscation thru lexiphanicism when ultimately the attempt collapses at things that just cannot be logically justified, as superhero powers are really fantastic and non-logical and for the superhero genre science fiction is just a source of tropes and a aesthetic surface patina and not an operational structure.

A while back in another thread I commented that there used to be an awareness that SF was different from scifi in that SF was genuinely concerned with thought experiments in which instances of extrapolation were then developed with full scientific rigor through a narrative, while scifi was a melting pot of adventure-entertainment genres using as decoration or plot props the concepts of SF. It was the pop to SF's rock, if I may be so reductive.

And superheroes are fantasy, they are scifi, not SF, and that is not a bad thing, me thinks. I am not saying that to be snobbish. Rather the opposite. While trying to have superhero stories that are rigorously SF can work and is a worthwhile endeavor, if we want to portray the comic universes we are fond of, the ones we have followed for years with characters we have grown to love, to deny the ranges of fantasy elements usually accepted would be to limit and hobble the width of great stories that can be developed and explored and exclude things we have enjoyed in comics and would not fit with more exacting definitions of what can be thought possible.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

ultimately it just creates further layers of obfuscation thru lexiphanicism

See what you did there!

 

[jfurioso]

Theory as in unproven theory ? Because it's not an unproven theory, enough proof exists about the validity of Theory of Relativity.

So we are complaining that a comic book editor was not very science-savvy. I would have never imagined it!

The core of the response, undermined as it is by the flawed understanding of the editor, is that the comics exist in a world that while it may resemble our own, it is not, it is fictional and does not correspond to our own in how things work, thus a man flying by his power, unrealistic in the way that science is defied or that good seems to triumph over evil, routinely.

Also, we must remember that one of the great things about science is that it is not dogmatic in that theories can always be further refined or replaced by more accurate alternatives.

In that, I think adding elements of more advanced science buzz concepts to movies or comics is basically fan service. When we see pebbles float around Superman in MOS just before he flies up, those among us with some knowledge of science can get excited to see hints of localized gravity disruption around him, which adds an apparent level of sophistication, and makes us feel smart for recognizing it. But if we were to keep thinking about what such a thing as localized gravity lensing performed by an individual would imply, we would surely hit the wall of absurdity pretty soon. But we stop way before that and just feel glad we feel smart and "in the know".

 

[jfurioso]

See what you did there!

Yeah, if I cannot mock myself what is the use of speaking up?