Superman is my least favorite of all ‘super-heroes’ and has plenty of ways in which he “defies” the laws of physics … aka ignores everything. First off, he can fly with no obvious flapping or propulsion device. What force is he exerting to cancel the effects of gravity? He has to be exerting some sort of a downward force to receive the upward push. Since he is alien, one could say that his mass and density is different from a normal human and he has less to be pulled on by gravity, but then why isn’t he floating away every step he takes? Next, his x-ray vision is completely backwards. Say his eyes actually could detect x-rays, the object itself would have to be emitting the x-rays for him to receive. So what is he really doing with his eyes to see through objects? And lastly, his super-hearing: in one movie, Lois falls off a building. Superman is 1000 miles away yet he hears her scream and runs to catch her. Completely ignoring the running and catching, how does he hear her scream from so far away? Even if his hearing abilities are that powerful, shouldn’t the closer and louder sounds drown out her scream or, at the very least, make it completely unrecognizable? I find it very hard to believe he would be able to suppress the sounds of a fly buzzing at his ear, thousands of cars driving in the city, workers doing construction, and the sounds of everyday conversation in all directions to just hear one scream and know exactly where it is coming from. Honestly, this is why I never liked Superman growing up. … he was too ‘super’. I had no grasp of physics or natural laws at the time but I knew that he was an impossible figure.

The writers of Contact got the twin paradox backwards. Since Foster was traveling at almost the speed of light, she should have experienced a ’slower’ time than the observers on Earth. On the basis that Jodie Foster’s character experienced 18 hrs worth of events, the observers on Earth in the control booth should have experienced at least a few days worth of time (on the basis of her traveling at say 0.998c, she should have been gone around 12 days but I am not sure how her traveling through wormholes would effect that estimation).

The movie could have had vast improvement in scientific accuracy just by switching the ratio of time that Jodie’s character and the people in the control booth experience. I would still want Jodie’s character to have 18 hours of experiences but I would increase the wait of the outside observers. Have everyone stressing out, wondering if they should give up on her returning, someone being on constant guard at all hours of the night. It would make for great drama. Plus when she actually did return, everyone would believe her and the whole thing would be a world-changing event instead of just something that only changes her. Also, this would spare her the horrible conference at the end at which no one believes her story.

But, other than the ending, this was overall a really good movie which I thoroughly enjoyed much more than I did when I was 10ish.

The first invention on the discusion list is the replicator. This is actually a product of “The next Generation” but seeing as my mother is a Trekie (no she did not dress up) I am quite familiar with many of the little technological advances of the shows … this one just always baffled me. In the Star Trek world, machines called replicators created solid matter (from what I am assuming is just air). The matter they created was usually just food or drink in dishes. This was important to the storyline because it is very doubtful that just any old planet they pass by will have the foodstuff needed for a long deep-space adventure, just as preserving food for extended periods of time is difficult and very unappetising. This machine would not be possible in today’s world. According to David Batchelor, a NASA scientist interested in Star Trek, “we know how to create microchip circuits and experimental nanometer-scale objects by “drawing” them on a surface with a beam of atoms.” As of this day and time, scientists cannot just create dishes of food by assembling all the necessary atoms into the proper organiztion and structure.

The warp drive used throughout all Star Trek movies also is infeasable today … or for that matter it is infeasable at any point in time. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Even if the ship can move almost the speed of light, the difference in times experienced by people on the planets and people on the ships would prevent any “Federation” from forming. Yes, this is extremely necessary to the plot because no audience will want to watch a show wich takes six episodes and twelve generations just to get to the next galaxy – this makes for a very dull show.

Fortunately for all the fans though, movies and television do not have to follow all of the laws of physics. Scifi writers can just create anything they want to make their story more atractive, though, thankfully, Star Trek was one of the more reasonable shows in which most inventions were of necessity. not boredom.

This movie was very … interesting. It not only portrayed the facts about what occured in the Manhatten Project but it had a pretty decent portrayal of the personalities of the people involved.  (that is not to say they were necessarily 100% accurate … I am sure Hollywood fiddled a bit here and there) Every person’s attitude seemed a little bit stereotypical: the military man was pressing hard for progress and was completely obsessed with the war and the scientist were all a little kooky. Dr. Oppenheimer was most definitely the strangest character of them all. I do wish the film went into more of his girlfriend on the side and what these ‘politics’ everyone disagreed with him with were. Was he supposed to be portrayed as communistic? If so, then why would he be helping the US government be building a bomb to kill communists? Also, I dont understand the sudden change of heart of the scientist near the end. I realize that they were caught up in the desire to discover but one would think they would acknowledge beforehand exactly what they were building the bomb for. It seems almost fickle-ish. I know that is harsh because I personally have never been in such a monstrous position but I believe morals should have been considered before they even signed on.

Also in need of comment is Dr. Oppenhiemer’s slow transistion from being on the side of the scientists to being the General’s go-to guy. He is slowly drawn in by the power of being in control of such a powerful project. He begins to acquire something of a ‘god complex’. The movie shows this a a result of the general’s actions concerning Oppenheimer’s girlfriend but I believe it most likely had to do with the general weakness of mankind when it comes to power for he truly had more control over the project than anyone else including the general and the other scientists.

Overall this movie was good at portraying facts only. The ethics and motivations were not a focus of the film which to me is disappointing. But I do say “well done Hollywood” for taking a historical event and making it into a semi-decent movie (definitely better than The Core … much much better).

Nuclear Energy:

I, for one, am for nuclear power. It is cheap energy which can be produced entirely on American soil. Yes, there are some safety concerns but anything producing electricity will have safety issues, if not on such a potent level. I grew up near a nuclear power plant and a nuclear waste plant in the upstate of SC and even though I am quite crazy, I have seen no ill effects of being around nuclear products. Saying that the country should not have nuclear power plants is like saying people should not have gas fireplaces. Yes, gas is harmful if inhaled and has a slight tendency to explode but there are safety gaurds in place to prevent accidents … just like nuclear radiation is harmful and explosions are probably involved here too but safety provisions are in place for a reason. Accidents do happen but that shouldnt prevent a country from becoming more energy efficient and independant.

Nuclear Weapons:

I personally believe that nuclear weapons are too devostating to actually use … but then again I believe that wars should be avoided in the first place, so I might be just a little prejudiced. Everyone has seen the effects of nuclear fallout and there is no reason anyone should have to go through that no matter what their faults. Also, every major country has nuclear weapons which they would retaliate with if hit by a nuke first. I personally dont want kids with six arms and one leg. There is a difference between having nuclear plants which could possibly have issues and cause an isolated incident and starting a WWIII which could expose the world three times over to nuclear radiation. 

Nuclear Armageadon:

A nuclear holocaust would be extremely easy to achieve in today’s world. I know that a lot of major countries signd that treaty to destroy a certain percentage of their nuclear weapons … but seriously … who really believes that they all actually did? But ignoring that fact, just based on how many public nuclear weapons are in existance, the world would be completly changed if they were actually utilized. This could all be started just as all wars are started: someone with power wants more power and doesnt care who gets hurt in the process. Some leader would find or make an excuse to initiate combat with another country and in the fighting “somehow” an nuke would “accidently” be used and then other countries would get involved and eventually everyone would just keep attacking everyone else instead of stopping to think about the results of their actions. 

So in summary I say that nuclear power is great but nuclear weapons are too dangerous for humans to play with anymore. 

The Day After Tomorrow is Today?

Movies such as The Day After Tomorrow affect people in different ways depending on how each person perceives the world:

The naive and young will assume it is all true just because Hollywood says so. Why would Hollywood lie? They will believe the northern world is going to freeze and become ‘save the earth’ fanatics.

Those already set in their beliefs against global warming will scoff at the movie because it is just the ‘fearful fanatics’ taking over Hollywood. Hollywood doesn’t care about the truth … they just want to make money.

And those already set in their beliefs for global warming will see the movie as a great forewarning to the general public or just good entertainment, depending on their level of scientific understanding.

Public awareness of global warming has increased recently, though I really doubt it was a result of this movie, and the unrealisticness of the film will most likely prevent the film from have too great of an effect on people’s beliefs. But ultimately people will eventually have to decide for themselves whether or not they believe in global warming and I truly hope that people will look at actual facts instead of Hollywood’s dramatics.

First, I just want to thank Hollywood for showing the world just how far our education standards have fallen. This was a PG-13 movie with the scientific understanding of a 4th grader … Sadly the movie did decently in theatres, which means that some poor kid is going to very upset when his physics teacher starts debunking everything which he “learned” from the scientific mumbo-jumbo and technobabble (or when he finds out we cant just visit the core and drill holes with EM waves or see through 3 ft of lead).

But onto the film! The first scene has a few dozen people just dropping dead because their artificial hearts stopped. Then birds go crazy from what was later explained as an EM pulse… ok… where were the people with artificial hearts there? Hollywood apparently thinks Boston has a much higher percentage of people with heart problems than London. Also, the EM pulses were caused by what? … the stopping of the core of course, which in itself is entirely impossible.

The creators felt that screwing with physics on the ground wasn’t enough. So therefore, why not venture into space? That shuttle was rather agile and turned too fast to actually be controlled by NASA’s current technology… nice landing too. I could possibly buy that the EM field collapse might mess with the navigation of the shuttle but I cant bring myself to believe that a shuttle could turn that hard and find a nice human-free spot to land (shuttles are big and hard to maneuver). Also, I dont remember ever learning how the Earth’s EM field protects us from solar microwaves. May I see your source and their research on that please Mr. Amiel?

Back on the ground I come to Virgil. Enough said. The ship is so ridiculus that I dont know why they even continued filming. Virgil is made of Unobtanium(?), which can withstand 3000-5000 degrees Celcius and enormous pressure. This ship has a CAT scan-like piece of equipment which can see through 3 feet of lead (never heard of anything close to this which can actually be produced outside of a maniac’s head), lasers that can cut through rock to form perfect circles (I wont even try to touch that one) and radio equipment that can be heard all the way into the core (even if the signal could pass through all the earth’s elements, the longest radio signal without the assistance of satellites was a station in Michigan which projected itself 500 km using 320000 watts of power … so home base would need quite a bit of power; and no factor of time delay is shown in the film either) On a side note, why does the ship need lights if it has this wonderful scanner? … oh yeah, so they can see when they walk out into the core itself (where are the effects of pressure … or for that matter, heat … inside the diamond cave with no Unobtanium to protect the delicate human bodies). Also, Unobtanium can withstand enormous pressures and temperature yet is stopped by a diamond? … someone please explain that to me.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  The drop into the ocean: the weight was distributed so evenly and the ship it was on so still that it did a perfect nosedive into the ocean. That must have taken a lot of effort and skill … go imaginary scientist and construction workers. Also, doesnt the dive create freefall? The actors seem to be having a pretty rough time with their seatbelts in an environment in which they should be feeling “weightless”.

Back on the surface, Rome is demolished by … wait for it … “sky-high altitude static discharge” aka fancy lightening. One bolt can blow up a statue? Twenty can destroy the Coliseum? (right…)

On to the “solution” of fixing the core. Nuclear warheads? … five of them. Seriously? I might not be a nuclear-physicist or a geologist but I am not stupid … please give your viewers some more credit Hollywood.

Now to get back out of the core, the remaining crew uses the Unobtanium shell to convert heat into energy and rides a magma flow back to the ocean floor, while steering away from the black spots (diamonds). This is an absolutely amazing material that can do anything (except withstand the impact of a diamond of course). And a human body could not withstand that rapid of an ascent, no matter what ship it is in.

Other random things horribly wrong throughout: microwaves (although extremely useful in the kitchen) cannot kill fish and destroy bridges and cars (why were only the fish and inanimate objects feeling these effects ,,, and not the humans?) on any sort of magnitude; those power rods (the extra weight for the last nuke) were hot enough to burn through a metal chain yet the hero’s hands only received minor skin burns which allowed him to use them later on; and finally, Virgil’s creator gives up his life to release the hydraulic locks to separate the different parts of the ship … nice slow death in which he withstood the undiminished heat of the core for 2+ minutes? … and stayed conscious?

Hollywood really messed up on this film. Maybe they should have spent less on the graphic effects (which sucked anyways) and hired some real scientific advisors.

What is the best way to knock an asteroid out of its destructive path toward earth? Project something of large mass at a high velocity at a perpendicular angle to its trajectory. … And what better to get rid of than trash. My plan to save the earth (with some helpful brainstorming of a friend) is to take trash from the landfills, collect it all together in space, and then use 20 nuclear warheads to project it at a 90 degree angle into the asteroid to alter the path away from earth.

I do need to play with some of the variables though. An asteroid the size of Texas is just too big; so let’s go with an average civilization killing asteroid with a 3 km diameter. Also, 18 days is kind of sudden. I hope that the eyes in the sky can keep a better lookout … so I give earth two years (6.3 x10⁷ sec) which is plenty of time to assemble everything necessary and set up the space trash ball in a similar orbit to the moon. Assuming the velocity is constant throughout space (1.1×10⁴ m/s) and is not affected by other gravitational bodies, the asteroid would be at a distance of 6.93 x10¹¹ m (6.93 x10⁸ km). … It is estimated that any given landfill near a city receives 500 tons (453952 kg) of waste a day. So I will collect the contents of two landfills for an estimated mass of 1.0×10⁶ kg.

How far off course must the asteroid be pushed?

The radius of the earth: 6.5×10⁶ m

How much force is needed to move the asteroid off course enough to miss earth (ignoring gravitational pull)?

Assuming the asteroid is round:

V = (4/3)π(d/2)^3

V = (4/3)π(3000/2)^3 = 1.41×10⁹ m³

Assuming the asteroid is made of similar materials and has the same density as the earth (5500 kg/m³):

ρ = m/v

m = ρv

m = (5500)(1.41×10⁹ m³) = 7.75×10¹² kg

*v₁ is the velocity of the asteriod coming toward the earth; v₂ is the velocity of the asteroid and the trash on a perpendicular path to the asteroid’s original path, assuming no velocity was lost in the collision and that the trash ball exploded upon collision

E_f = E_i

PE_f + KE_f = PE_i + KE_i

0 + 1/2mv_1f² + 1/2m v_2f­² = 1/2(KE of the 20 warheads) + 1/2mv_1i²

1/2(7.75×10¹² kg)(v_2f­²) = 1/2(1.67×10¹⁷ J)(20)

v_2f­² = 4.31×10⁵ m²/s²

v_2f­ = 656.9 m/s

This plan would be put into effect just after the asteroid passed the moon

t = d/v = (3.8 x10⁸ m)/( 1.1×10⁴ m/s) = 3.45×10⁴ s

Is this enough to miss the earth?

d = vt = (656.9 m/s)( 3.45×10⁴ s) = 2.27×10⁷ m

In theory, my plan would work. It would just take a lot of time and effort to collect the trash, put it in space, assemble the trash into a ball and set up the nuclear devices on them. Another problem would be: will the trash return to the earth and possibly be even more damaging just from sheer magnitude? Oh well.

The law of conservation of linear momentum states that the final momentum is equal to the initial momentum.

            P_f = P_i

I chose the first scene which contained the rail gun. There are two collisions: the shooter and the bullet; and the victim and the bullet.

Collision 1:

            mass of shooter: around 170 lbs or 77 kg

            v_i of shooter: 0 m/s

            mass of the bullet: 0.0162 kg (based on the mass of a .45 caliber bullet)

            v_i of bullet: 0 m/s

            v_f of bullet: 150 mph or 67 m/s

P_f = P_i

P_{f shooter} + P_{f bullet} = P_{i shooter} + P_{i bullet}

m_shooter v_{f shoote}r +m_bullet v_{f bullet} = m_shooter v_{i shooter} + m_bullet v_{i bullet}

(77kg)(v_{f shooter}) + (0.0162kg)(67m/s) = (77kg)(0m/s) + (0.0162kg)(0m/s)

(77kg)(v_{f shooter}) + 1.0854 kg m/s = 0 kg m/s

v_{f shooter} = – 0.014 m/s

The shooter would have been shoved in the opposite direction of the bullet at a speed of 0.014 m/s.

Collision 2:

mass of victim: around 180 lbs or 82 kg

            v_i of victim: 0 m/s

            mass of the bullet: 0.0162 kg (based on the mass of a .45 caliber bullet)

            v_i of bullet: 150 mph or 67 m/s

            v_f of bullet: 0 m/s

P_f = P_i

P_{f victim} + P_{f bullet} = P_{i victim} + P_{i bullet}

m_victim v_{f victim} +m_bullet v_{f bullet} = m_victim v_{i victim} + m_bullet v_{i bullet}

(82kg)(v_{f victim}) + (0.0162kg)(0m/s) = (82kg)(0m/s) + (0.0162kg)(67m/s)

(82kg)(v_{f victim}) =1.0854 kg m/s

v_{f victim} =  0.013 m/s

The victim would have been shoved in the direction of the bullet at a speed of 0.013 m/s.

- How far did the boat travel after initially hitting the dock?

- What was the initial velocity? According to the navigator, approximately 6 knots, which is 30.86 m/s.

- What was the time that elapsed after the initial contact?  From my rough estimation, about 4 min, or 240 sec. This is just my metal clock which I am sure is not entirely accurate, especially with the multiple shots of the same five seconds from different camera angles.

- The final velocity was 0 m/s.

 - How far away from the oil tanker did the cruise ship need to be in order to turn and not have a collision?

- What was the velocity of the cruise ship?  Again, according to the navigator, the ship was traveling approximately 17 knots, or 87.45 m/s.

- How much did it need to turn? From a basic knowledge of geometry, around 45 degrees.

- How long was the oil tanker? According to Ocean’s Atlas, an average oil tanker 184 ft, or 56 m, long.

- How does the friction of the water come into play? This I cannot answer for I have no clue about buoyancy or salt water’s resistance

 - Could a man really be dragged by a plane, through water, and still hold on?

- What was the velocity of the plane?  I would say around 50 mph, or 22.35 m/s as a rough guess.

- How strong is the friction and resistance of the water? The density of the water is 1027 kg/m3, which will create a resistance of some strength. Unfortunately my knowledge of physics is not enough to tell me exactly how to figure how much resistance is produced from the water; I just believe that density has a part in the equation.

- How much force can the man put into holding on? I really have no answer for this because each man has his own strength. I believe this also is related to the friction between the man’s hands and the pole he is gripping.