sbrothy said:
A “constellation” as seen from Earth is a bunch of stars which seem to make a pattern. They may not even be close. One star may be lightyears from another. It’s a real bad measure for localizing anything at all. You dont see that?
This always comes down to the audience and story telling.
You and I know that a constellation is only meaningful from Earth, and that it does not define radial distance.
But, in terms of story-telling, how much time should they spend on accuracy, as opposed to keeping the story moving? Is radial distance
necessary for the plot?
Before you answer that: let me suggest an experiment: find a doctor-friend or healthcare friend and watch a medical or forensics show on TV with them. Did you notice that, when they swabbed the petri dish for bacteria, they only swabbed one, and not a dozen, for repeatability? No?
Did you notice, in "The Pit", they don't even wear face masks. Like, ever?
Well your medical friend did, and it's killing him.
In CSI, Gil Grissom is God's gift to forensic science, and yet:
- it took him a half an episode to identify a Siamese fighting fish
- he described someone falling off a building as: "well,
terminal velocity is 9.8 metres per second, so he should have landed ... there." (Damn near threw the remote at the TV for that one...)
Movies and shows are written for the broader audience, and technical accuracy eats up screen time better left for plot. (books are better for accuracy).
It's just something you have to accept - just one more layer of suspension of disbelief - when watching anything techncal.
