Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Janus

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

  1. #1 The Sloppiest Sci-Fi Movie Science Violations of 2012 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    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.


    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    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.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    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)
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    .... 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
    Last edited by msafwan; January 4th, 2013 at 03:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    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.
    arKane likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    (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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. 【Huangshan,China Jul.10,2012】【EI,ISTP,SCI】ICIDMP2012-Submission of Paper deadline Jun.18.2012
    By emily2010113 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 13th, 2012, 10:29 PM
  2. 【Huangshan,China Jul.10,2012】【EI,ISTP,SCI】ICIDMP2012-Submission of Paper deadline Jun.4.2012
    By emily2010113 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 31st, 2012, 10:30 PM
  3. 【Huangshan,China Jul.10,2012】【EI,ISTP,SCI】ICIDMP2012-Submission of Paper deadline Jun.4.2012
    By emily2010113 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 7th, 2012, 10:03 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •