Do Movies Misrepresent Science as Fact?

[SpitfireAce]

well the real explanation is kind of long (pulling your arms straight in along the radius involves creating an applied force to counteract the carolios force so you're pushing off/doing work and increasing your KE), but they could have at least said decreased your moment of inertia since they apparently looked up the term moment of inertia

How about the movie "the core" where there were air bubbles in magma close to the center of the earth, or how they used 1 or 2 "well positioned" nuclear devices to start the core spinning

any body know of any good sci-fi movies that involve complex topics but actually do a good job with the science...
im going to say Jurassic Park

 

[ank_gl]

any body know of any good sci-fi movies that involve complex topics but actually do a good job with the science...

million dollar$$$$$ question

 

[ank_gl]

http://www.scifi-movies.com/english/classement/movies.htm
search through these and find out yourself that there is nothing called "good sci-fi movies that involve complex topics but actually do a good job with the science..."

 

[ank_gl]

aaaaah I,ROBOT, robot torso changing color to red, when gone bad was soooooooooo funny

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

million dollar$$$$$ question

I'd say given that Cube 2ypercube deals with a tessaractal prison that shifts and rearranges itself in 4 dimensions, that it does a remarkably good job of explaining 4 dimensional maths and physics to an audience that is at least at a visual level unable to grasp the implications.

 

[ank_gl]

I'd say given that Cube 2ypercube deals with a tessaractal prison, that it does a remarkably good job of explaining 4 dimensional maths to an audience that is at least at a visual level unable to grasp the implications.

all that stuff went over my head

 

[SpitfireAce]

me too, I am not sure which one I watched, but I recall the "hypercube" had one room that shifted periodically, why is that a 4 dimensional figure?

 

[Danger]

Never saw any Cubes or Cores, or the like. I do think that my second favourite movie, which is the only SF film in history to earn a Best Actor Oscar, presented the scientific aspect nicely: 'Charly'.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

all that stuff went over my head

Tesarract is a 4d cube, in the movie their trapped in one that not only shifts in space but in time too. The fact that it's quite a complicated idea and that it is explained well by the resident mathemeticians and physics buffs who happen to have been detained in it is remarkable really.

http://www.mathematik.com/4DCube/4DCubePovray.html

Here's what a tesarract would look like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_2:_Hypercube

Here's an overview of the film, contains spoilers.

me too, I am not sure which one I watched, but I recall the "hypercube" had one room that shifted periodically, why is that a 4 dimensional figure?

The idea was not just 4D as in v,x,y,z but also in terms of x,y,z,t ie time and space itself was being moved this time as well as the cube itself. So you could meet older and younger versions of themselves at various points in the film, and in fact they did. One room but it could move through itself by the spatial nature of itself and you could move into rooms at different periods in time.

 

[Danger]

the "hypercube" had one room that shifted periodically

Sorry, Spitfire... I'm not laughing at you. This just reminded me of a short story in one of my 'Best SF of (whatever year)' anthologies. I think that it might have been called 'There Was a Crooked House'. I can't remember the exact details, but this guy built his house under a freeway clover-leaf that was constructed as a Mobius strip. An earthquake occurred, and the whole thing folded up, trapping him in the 5th dimension.

 

[ank_gl]

interesting animation there SD.
it looks like a square donut folding into itself. like when you roll the grip on the handle of a cricket bat.

 

[ank_gl]

Sorry, Spitfire... I'm not laughing at you. This just reminded me of a short story in one of my 'Best SF of (whatever year)' anthologies. I think that it might have been called 'There Was a Crooked House'. I can't remember the exact details, but this guy built his house under a freeway clover-leaf that was constructed as a Mobius strip. An earthquake occurred, and the whole thing folded up, trapping him in the 5th dimension.

cheh.. that too went over my head

 

[Danger]

cheh.. that too went over my head

Well, see... if you had your hovercraft going, you would have been high enough up that it would have smacked you right square in the lips.

 

[SpitfireAce]

"The fact that it's quite a complicated idea and that it is explained well by the resident mathemeticians and physics buffs who happen to have been detained in it is remarkable really."
weren't they counting the number of different rooms... what's the significance of that?

did anybody watch a movie called "primer"?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

"The fact that it's quite a complicated idea and that it is explained well by the resident mathemeticians and physics buffs who happen to have been detained in it is remarkable really."
weren't they counting the number of different rooms... what's the significance of that?

did anybody watch a movie called "primer"?

No in cube they did as they were numbered, the guy who invented the numbering sequence for the original seems rather miffed that there isn't one in hypercube, but then there wouldn't be would there

 

[SpitfireAce]

"Apollo Thirteen" was pretty solid, the gravity assist, the CO2, it was all surprisingly well researched
"Donnie Darko", I didn't understand what the hell was going on most of the time but there seemed to be a few interesting ideas about time-paths or something
"What the bleep do we know"... I thought that movie was garbage... turned quantum mechanics into some kind of mysticism/philosophy/self-empowerment thing

 

[Danger]

"Apollo Thirteen" was pretty solid

But, that wasn't Science Fiction. It was a 'docudrama' about an historical event. Of course the science was accurate, since it came from NASA.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Donnie Darko was a paradox, the plot could not actually happen unless Darko died originally, and if he died originally the plot would never have manifested itself so that he could then chose to die when the Planes engine fell on him. The movie either has no resolution, or there is someone: perhaps the old lady, operating something outside of the time loop in which the movie starts.

Damn right it's confusing, because it's not actually possible for it to happen

That's what makes it so good, that and the great sound track and 80's vibe.

Think about it he lives because the rabbit leads him outside of the house, the guy in the rabbit suit dies because of the events precipitated by him living thus leading him to his eventual death which then could not have causilly happened. It's a real mind funk but it's damned good none the less.

 

[SpitfireAce]

"the plot could not actually happen unless Darko died originally, and if he died originally the plot would never have manifested itself so that he could then chose to die when the Planes engine fell on him"
yeah, he was following god's time path or something, so the bunny let him see things outside of his own time path in which he dies, the future in essence if he had lived, and in that future that girl dies, so he goes back to his own time-line in the past and dies to prevent the girl from dying.

there were a lot of mind ****s though, like that old lady... and the rabbit... and cellar door

if you want an even bigger mind funk, watch "primer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)#How_the_time_travel_machine_works

 

[mgb_phys]

"the plot could not actually happen unless Darko died originally, and if he died originally the plot would never have manifested itself so that he could then chose to die when the Planes engine fell on him"

You're trying to understand the plot of Donnie Darko while in a legal state of mind

 

[Hurkyl]

I hope you've read this to add to your collection of movie physics mistakes. :)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1167

Zz.

I don't like that link; I think it's very poorly done. It feels like they're trying to make fun of movies, rather than to educate. The Superman section was terrible; once they (for the sake of argument) grant Superman the ability to propel himself through outer space, they
(1) Continue the analysis as if Superman is pushing off of the Earth.
(2) Assert that the director was trying to invoke conservation of angular momentum to reverse the Earth's rotation, instead of, say, friction.

 

[SpitfireAce]

yeah, they pick easy targets... make a bunch of "assumptions", and do math based on their own assumptions (or outside research)... it's funny, I was just reading a thread about why people publish in journals and this sort of captures one of the posts... "publish or perish"

 

[Danger]

If you want to read a really great treatise on the Superman situation, check out Larry Niven's article entitled 'Man of Steel; Woman of Kleenex'. It puts ol' Clark's sex life into perspective. (I'm planning to send a copy to Tom Welling sometime. )

 

[ank_gl]

You're trying to understand the plot of Donnie Darko while in a legal state of mind

that is what normal public, who goes for that movie, is not supposed to do

 

[DaveC426913]

If you want to read a really great treatise on the Superman situation, check out Larry Niven's article entitled 'Man of Steel; Woman of Kleenex'. It puts ol' Clark's sex life into perspective. (I'm planning to send a copy to Tom Welling sometime. )

One of his best!

 

[Esnas]

..."What the bleep do we know"... I thought that movie was garbage... turned quantum mechanics into some kind of mysticism/philosophy/self-empowerment thing

I realize that this movie is anathema to PF'ers and presents many unproven ideas as fact (a quality that can lead to a thread being locked)...but do you think that it has any redeeming qualities at all? Is it total BS from beginning to the end?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I realize that this movie is anathema to PF'ers and presents many unproven ideas as fact (a quality that can lead to a thread being locked)...but do you think that it has any redeeming qualities at all? Is it total BS from beginning to the end?

Well I think it was unique, it was panned and bombed on first release and only really did well in becoming a cult classic on it's second release. I can understand why some people thought it was daft, but I loved it personally

 

[rcgldr]

the director tries to use the principle of conservation of angular momentum when superman flies around the Earth the other way to slow it down and then somehow relates it to time going backwards.

The idea here is that Superman is orbiting faster than the speed of light, and the point of the Earth rotating backwards is to show time moving backwards so the audience expeiriences what Superman is experiencing time wise.

Personally the movies I have issues with are ghost stories, the most common problem is why ghosts can go through walls, but don't fall through the floor. Seems like Casper was one of the few to get this right.

 

[BillJx]

The Edge (1997) with Anthony Hopkins as a millionaire with a photographic memory, surviving in the Alaskan wilderness with the knowledge he'd gained by reading. The writer didn't bother learning anything about wilderness survival before writing a movie about it, and obviously nobody bothered to check any of his assumptions. Intellectually lazy to an absolutely inexcusable degree. Never mind the silly portrayal of the grizzly as the ultimate carnivore, never mind its psychopathically playing with its prey for days, the smell of blood, etc etc. This thread deals with physics so I'll stick to that.

The group needs to find north on a rainy day. Hopkins' character asks someone for a pin, which he rubs on a piece of cloth to magnetize it, then floats it on a leaf to use it as a compass.
I don't mind mistakes. And I can ignore a cheerful disregard for historical accuracy as practiced, for example, by Shakespeare. But for a writer to not bothering checking his inexpert assumptions . . . it's lazy, it's arrogant, it discredits the art.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How dare you! You mean Richard III was not a hunch back tyrant who ruled with cruelty and overt menace. It was just a propaganda exercise commissioned by the Tudors to discredit the Yorks? I can't accept that

The sun rising in the West in Troy, I've done that before, I'm sure the astrologers of the time would have been mighty confused not to mention the men but nary a murmur. That's patently just lazy by the director, no one can make that mistake by accident.

 

[gabee]

The group needs to find north on a rainy day. Hopkins' character asks someone for a pin, which he rubs on a piece otf cloth to magnetize it, then floats it on a leaf to use it as a compass.
I don't mind mistakes. And I can ignore a cheerful disregard for historical accuracy as practiced, for example, by Shakespeare. But for a writer to not bothering checking his inexpert assumptions . . . it's lazy, it's arrogant, it discredits the art.

What's strange (and slightly worrisome) is that a google query for the edge movie needle silk compass yields several sites telling users that silk magnetization really works...