Can the Invisible Man Reboot Exceed the Success of Kevin Bacon's Hollow Man?

  • Thread starter new6ton
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Invisible
In summary: It's not like you can go around the world and make everything invisible, but there are definitely some interesting possibilities for stories and movies with this technology.In summary, the reboot of Invisible Man will be shown next year.
  • #36
Take a look at this, who wants this product? It can look like a clear plastic and good as camouflage outdoor or indoor!



I just read it at https://www.disclose.tv/invisibility-cloaking-no-longer-fiction-thanks-to-canadian-company-379269 (is there a possibility though that it's fake?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Part II of Hollowman (2006) is good in spite of what the reviews said. Here it was there explained that cell damage can occur when the invisibility serum was taken.

There was a part where the invisible man can be viewed by using green night mode of a normal camera. Supposed the invisibility in the movies was the result of the electrons being kept from transition to excited states by some kind of sci-fi mechanism. Is it not the green night mode is also viewing infrared electronic transition? How about thermal imager, it can view the molecules black body radiation temperature so its the molecules vibrating and not from electronic transition so it should technically 'see' the thermal images like in part I of it and not the green night mode, right?
 
  • #38
Looking at the lens system in the above video, it seems clear that the pattern from behind is being stretched from the edges to meet in the centre, cutting out the person in the middle. Every surface behind them has horizontal patterns, and when they move closer you can see the lines turn to a "V" shape. I suspect if the person walked any further to either side, they would appear, stretched and distorted, on the lens.

it's a neat trick, but I struggle to see a practical application for it!
 
  • #39
some bloke said:
it's a neat trick, but I struggle to see a practical application for it!
It doesn't have to be perfect. No form of camouflage is.
All it has to do is lower the visibility of an object to enemy surveillance.

If applied strategically, and in conjunction with other types of stealth tech (for example, if the guy in the video was wearing light grey-blue garb) it would be very effective.

Imagine this on tanks in a battlefield.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
DaveC426913 said:
It doesn't have to be perfect. No form of camouflage is.
All it has to do is lower the visibility of an object to enemy surveillance.

If applied strategically, and in conjunction with other types of stealth tech (for example, if the guy in the video was wearing light grey-blue garb) it would be very effective.

Imagine this on tanks in a battlefield.
I still think it would be impractical.

the lens would have to be held ahead of the advancing tank. The tank would have to keep it perpendicular to the observer (we have no idea what strange distortion can occur if you don't view it straight-on), and it could only be on one face, as it would simply be distorting the image of the lenses behind it is it wasn't. Also, there would be no way for the tank to shoot!
 
  • #41
some bloke said:
I still think it would be impractical.
What does impractical mean when it comes to a trillion dollar budget and fighting wars?

1] Is this the same government that researched the ability to kill goats with mind powers alone?
2] Any advantage that saves lives and wins battles is worth it.

some bloke said:
the lens would have to be held ahead of the advancing tank. The tank would have to keep it perpendicular to the observer (we have no idea what strange distortion can occur if you don't view it straight-on), and it could only be on one face, as it would simply be distorting the image of the lenses behind it is it wasn't. Also, there would be no way for the tank to shoot!
You're thinking a tad bit unimaginatively here.
Just a couple of notes, off the top of my head:
1] Stealth the bulk of a tank, not the barrel. Tanks operate over thousands of yards, not point-blank.
2] You only need confuse the enemy long enough for them to explode before they figure it out.
3] Protection from aerial attack.
etc. etc.
 
  • #42
DaveC426913 said:
What does impractical mean when it comes to a trillion dollar budget and fighting wars?

1] Is this the same government that researched the ability to kill goats with mind powers alone?

About killing goats. I heard of the book but never got to read it. And googling now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

And I just read now they have a film about it. Has anyone seen it already? It would be a good sci-fi if no one believes a word about this (and would be fun: Imagine that instead of the Jedi able to strangle a person at distant. The americans can stop the heart beat of goats at distant. Has a Jedi able to stop a heartbeat of someone in any of the movies before?.

"A fictionalized feature film version of the book was released in 2009 under the same name. Grant Heslov directed from a script by Peter Straughan.[6] It is set in Iraq, but was filmed in Comerío Street, Bayamón, Puerto Rico and at the New Mexico Military Institute. The story centers on "Bob Wilton" (Ewan McGregor)—the Ronson stand-in—a desperate reporter who stumbles upon the story of a lifetime. He meets "Lyn Cassady" (George Clooney)—a composite character—who claims to be a former secret U.S. military psychic soldier re-activated post-9/11. Jeff Bridges plays "Bill Django"—clearly a version of Jim Channon—the founder of the psychic soldier program and Lyn's mentor. Kevin Spacey plays "Larry Hooper"—a wholly fictional character—who is a former psychic soldier now running a rogue PsyOps unit in Iraq.[7] The film is prefaced with a title card stating "More of this is true than you would believe". The DVD release of The Men Who Stare at Goats includes a bonus documentary featuring Ronson and many of the people who feature prominently in his book.

Coinciding with the release of the feature film in 2009, John Sergeant, the producer of the TV series Crazy Rulers of the World, accused Ronson of "airbrushing him out of the story". While Ronson dedicated his book to Sergeant and included an afterword commending his research and guidance, the feature film did not mention his contributions.[8][9]

2] Any advantage that saves lives and wins battles is worth it.

You're thinking a tad bit unimaginatively here.
Just a couple of notes, off the top of my head:
1] Stealth the bulk of a tank, not the barrel. Tanks operate over thousands of yards, not point-blank.
2] You only need confuse the enemy long enough for them to explode before they figure it out.
3] Protection from aerial attack.
etc. etc.
 
  • #43
new6ton said:
About killing goats. I heard of the book but never got to read it. And googling now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

And I just read now they have a film about it. Has anyone seen it already?
I have.
It was humorous. But I like Clooney.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top