Thread: The Sloppiest Sci-Fi Movie Science Violations of 2012

I watched all of the movies in the link below and I enjoyed them all. But I also did note the science violations mentioned and accepted them as part of the entertainment value. Glad I do know the difference between entertainment and real science. Anyway considering the money these movies brought in, I'm betting we can expect more of the same in the future and I'll try not to be to judgmental and enjoy them too.

The Sloppiest Sci-Fi Movie Science Violations of 2012 | Popular Science

Physics professor Rhett Allain crunched the numbers to see what it would take to merely hover the machine in mid-air. The estimated power output was about 1.21 gigawatts, more than twice the maximum output of a real aircraft carrier.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who chuckled at the number.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Physics professor Rhett Allain crunched the numbers to see what it would take to merely hover the machine in mid-air. The estimated power output was about 1.21 gigawatts, more than twice the maximum output of a real aircraft carrier.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who chuckled at the number.

Must be a coincidence?

Originally Posted by arKane

I watched all of the movies in the link below and I enjoyed them all. But I also did note the science violations mentioned and accepted them as part of the entertainment value. Glad I do know the difference between entertainment and real science. Anyway considering the money these movies brought in, I'm betting we can expect more of the same in the future and I'll try not to be to judgmental and enjoy them too.

The Sloppiest Sci-Fi Movie Science Violations of 2012 | Popular Science

I'm wondering if some of these thing arn't done deliberately or at least knowingly so that they get the fans talking about and remembering certain films. It would be kind of funny to actually make a film and just see how much you could get away with, be fascinating to see how many faux pas you could make in a 2 hour movie. Or even invent an entirelly new branch of physics and see if you could sell as fact.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by arKane

I watched all of the movies in the link below and I enjoyed them all. But I also did note the science violations mentioned and accepted them as part of the entertainment value. Glad I do know the difference between entertainment and real science. Anyway considering the money these movies brought in, I'm betting we can expect more of the same in the future and I'll try not to be to judgmental and enjoy them too.

The Sloppiest Sci-Fi Movie Science Violations of 2012 | Popular Science

I'm wondering if some of these thing aren't done deliberately or at least knowingly so that they get the fans talking about and remembering certain films. It would be kind of funny to actually make a film and just see how much you could get away with, be fascinating to see how many faux pas you could make in a 2 hour movie. Or even invent an entirely new branch of physics and see if you could sell as fact.

If they think there is a chance something will make the movie more money, I'm sure they'll include it. But I will say the better the special effects the more they can get away with. I liked Looper , because time travel as a concept makes a very interesting plot and I like all Bruce Willis movies.

I have to take issue with one statement in the "Total Recall" bit. it is this:

That means, according to one movie critic's calculations, that the vehicle would need to travel 30,000 mph and reach accelerations of 10 times the Earth's gravity, or 10Gs.

I don't know who this movie critic was, but he needs to hand in his calculator. Crossing the diameter of the Earth in 17 min only requires an acceleration of 1g. That is falling at 1g until you reach the center, and then decelerating at 1g as you rise back to the surface. This is most likely the mistake made by the movie producers, assuming that gravity would be 1g for the whole trip rather than falling off with depth. A mistake none the less, but not as great as a mistake as portrayed by the article. (Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

Originally Posted by Janus

I have to take issue with one statement in the "Total Recall" bit. it is this:

That means, according to one movie critic's calculations, that the vehicle would need to travel 30,000 mph and reach accelerations of 10 times the Earth's gravity, or 10Gs.

I don't know who this movie critic was, but he needs to hand in his calculator. Crossing the diameter of the Earth in 17 min only requires an acceleration of 1g. That is falling at 1g until you reach the center, and then decelerating at 1g as you rise back to the surface. This is most likely the mistake made by the movie producers, assuming that gravity would be 1g for the whole trip rather than falling off with depth. A mistake none the less, but not as great as a mistake as portrayed by the article. (Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

Let's see about that in round numbers
Earths diameter = 8,000 miles

8000/17 = 470 miles/min

470 X 60 = 28,200 miles/hour

Not quite 30,000 but close enough for government work.

Originally Posted by Janus

.... Crossing the diameter of the Earth in 17 min only requires an acceleration of 1g. That is falling at 1g until you reach the center, and then decelerating at 1g as you rise back to the surface. This is most likely the mistake made by the movie producers, assuming that gravity would be 1g for the whole trip rather than falling off with depth. A mistake none the less, but not as great as a mistake as portrayed by the article. (Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

I think the "1 hour" bit have reference to a documentary.

There's this documentary that discuss an idea of future transportation system, one of them is this: "... (if we) dug a straight hole thru earth crust and emerge at another continent (behind earth's curvature), and allow train to freefall thru it in complete vaccuum: what we'll see is a 1 hour travel time to every destination that such hole connects"

Source: http://youtu.be/EapvQ3ALYJY?t=57s
"To Everywhere in 42 Minutes" : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...842469,00.html

Originally Posted by arKane

Originally Posted by Janus

I have to take issue with one statement in the "Total Recall" bit. it is this:

That means, according to one movie critic's calculations, that the vehicle would need to travel 30,000 mph and reach accelerations of 10 times the Earth's gravity, or 10Gs.

I don't know who this movie critic was, but he needs to hand in his calculator. Crossing the diameter of the Earth in 17 min only requires an acceleration of 1g. That is falling at 1g until you reach the center, and then decelerating at 1g as you rise back to the surface. This is most likely the mistake made by the movie producers, assuming that gravity would be 1g for the whole trip rather than falling off with depth. A mistake none the less, but not as great as a mistake as portrayed by the article. (Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

Let's see about that in round numbers
Earths diameter = 8,000 miles

8000/17 = 470 miles/min

470 X 60 = 28,200 miles/hour

Not quite 30,000 but close enough for government work.

Sheepishly, I have to correct my last figure. After posting, I realized that I had suffered from a brain fart and used the wrong value for the Earth's radius, (Must be a sign of age, as it one of those values that I usually have no trouble recalling from memory.) Anyway, the correct answer would be 5g to cross the earth in 17 min, which is still half the value given by the critic. As to the physiological effects of 5g for 17 mins, it's hard to say. (actually, you wouldn't feel the 5g for the whole trip, since 1g of it would be taken care of by gravity at the surface, so it would start at 4g, rise to 5g over 8.5 min and then decrease back down to 4g).

The actual top speed reached in such a "5g fall" would be ~56,000 mph, reached at the center.

Originally Posted by Janus

I have to take issue with one statement in the "Total Recall" bit. it is this:

That means, according to one movie critic's calculations, that the vehicle would need to travel 30,000 mph and reach accelerations of 10 times the Earth's gravity, or 10Gs.

I don't know who this movie critic was, but he needs to hand in his calculator. Crossing the diameter of the Earth in 17 min only requires an acceleration of 1g. That is falling at 1g until you reach the center, and then decelerating at 1g as you rise back to the surface. This is most likely the mistake made by the movie producers, assuming that gravity would be 1g for the whole trip rather than falling off with depth. A mistake none the less, but not as great as a mistake as portrayed by the article. (Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

I get about 5 g's, as follows.
For the first half of the trip y=(1/2)at^2
a=2y/(t^2)
Where
y = 6,371,000 meters, the radius of the earth
t=8.5 minutes (half the total of 17) = 8.5*60=510 seconds
a=2*6371000/260100 = 48.9
48.9/9.8=5 g

Did I make a mistake?

Edit: I see you fixed it already.

Originally Posted by Janus

(Of course, the part about heat and pressure still holds)

Unless we can come up with some new elements or alloys that can withstand the heat and pressure inside our planet, how fast we can get through the hole is irrelevant. But for the sake of my enjoyment of the movie, I can easily assume that it might be possible in the future and then enjoy the movie without being to critical of it. Apparently I'm not alone in that sentiment, because that movie did a very good box office business.