Erik’s Movie Blog

This assignment was to choose a super hero film of our choice, so though I’ve seen Iron man before, it wasn’t my first pick.  Now don’t get me wrong, it was a terrific and entertaining film, but it’s hard for me to picture a multi-convicted drug junkie ever coming close to being any type of “save the day” character.  Therefore, I decided to do the Incredible Hulk, which is not to be confused with piece of trash they called a movie that was released in 2003 as “The Hulk”, but the actual successful work.  Not only was this an excellent film one reason for me to choose it, but also I’ve always enjoyed the notion that the Hulk illustrated, which was a superhuman muscular green ball of rage.  It doesn’t get much simpler than that, which in this case is all you really need.

So to get to the assignment, one of the first apparent bad example of physics that isn’t in the film, but is a necesity to the general development of Bruce Banner in the comics and television program is his overexposure to gamma radiation that mutates his body.  This is seen in the opening scenes of the film when it even goes to illustrate that even every blood cell is affected by the mutation.  The general concept of this definitely goes hand-in-hand with the super hero film as only a super hero would ever be able to survive the amount of intense gamma radiation that Bruce Banner endures. As we saw in “Fat Man, Little Boy” the extreme emission of gamma radiation was able to completely deteriorate the scientists body in only a matter of a short time.  In real life, any actually human being would have been fried on the spot.

Along with the origin of the Hulk is, as we talked about in class earlier in the year, the actually physics behind the anatomy of the Hulk.  We discussed that the Hulk is a scaled up much more pissed off alter ego of Bruce Banner, who happens to be a typical normal sized man.  So for a normal sized man to be scaled up so many sizes bigger that his body would undergo anatomical constraints.  This would be seen typically in the muscles as the cross-sectional area of the muscle development would not scale up proportionally to the size the Hulk would reach.  Therefore, anatomically speaking the Hulk would barely harbor enough muscle to even hold his immense body up, more or less perform such muscularly and strength consuming tasks.

The last bad physics example is in Hulk’s signature move the “Hulk Smash” in which he almost earthquake type waves in the direction of his opponent.  Now considering that we already discussed in actuality his muscle mass would be hardly enough to keep him standing, that such a feat as this would be nearly impossible.  But, assuming he did have the capabilities to perform such an attack what exactly would it take?  It would have to involve him putting enough force on the ground to produce wave type motions along it, which would be an immense force in itself.

The Incredible Hulk is an overall excellent film, and though it’s not always correct from a phsycis standpoint, it’s still enjoyable to watch.

Contact was an interesting film to say the least.  The idea of another form life beyond ours somewhere in the galaxy is an on going question that people are still asking.  As funny as it seems that the special relativity theory, the twin paradox though it is presented earlier in the movie, and correctly defined, at the end of the movie they somehow misrepresent it and totally botch up the whole theory.  The movie illustrates the final travel scene showing the scientists seeing that Jodie Foster is dropped in the time vessel which falls directly through the machine in only a few quick seconds, while it is Jodie Foster who experiences the lapse of time and travel through the worm holes to the extraterrestrial destination.   So the misinterpretation of the twin paradox is presented when it is Jodie Foster’s time clock that runs faster as a result of the space travel being that she is gone for multiple hours and the scientists’ time clocks running slower, which is opposite of what the twin paradox presents.  According to the twin paradox the Jodie Foster’s time clock would run slower than that of the scientists, so a possible legitamate ending for the film would be that the scientists would have seen her vessel suspended in the machine for several hours, while to Jodie Foster it would have only seemed like a few seconds.  In order to show a better example of this, the movie could have shown a longer time scale so that when Jodie Foster returned there would have been a noticeable aging among the scientists, but little to no aging experienced by Jodie.

It is apparent that the writers of Star Trek IV did have to have in mind the invention of the warp drives when creating the plot of the movie.  Without the warp drives in the movie, I can only imagine that large, glowing probe would have just had its way with the galaxy however it pleased.  But!  The writers knew they had to get Captain Kirk and his crew somehow back into the 80’s, so their solution was the invention of the warp drives on the ship that allowed the ship to exceed the speed of light, be slingshot around the sun, and travel back to 1986, all while avoiding the effects of time dilation of the crew and ship.  By doing this, the crew was able to find two humpback whales existing in 1986 and all without losing any time return them back to their current turmoiled century to save the day.  Ultimately the warp drives are necessary because they allow the Enterprise to go back in time to 1986 and return without losing any time or exposing the crew to the effects of time dilation, which if this were to actually  happen would both be consequences had the Enterprise actually transcended the grasp of time and geographical spacial boundaries.  Therefore, the warp drives are invented with overcoming the physically ability of exceeding the speed of light and the adverse effects associated with time travel.  But remember, orbiting the sun in a slingshot motion should never be attempted at any warp less than warp 10 due to possible untimely death.

Another technology that is used in the film that is necessary to the plot is the transporter.  Without the transporter in the film there was no quick, logical way to relocate the crew or the whales when they were found to be in a troubled situation.  The transporter helps the crew escape the cops during the hospital scene, as well as beam the whales up into the Enterprise aquarium before being killed by the whalers.  As being a feasible piece of technology today, I’m not quite sure that it could actually exist.  To be able to transform some concrete object, such as a human, into a transmittable form of energy, then return it back to its unharmed, original state seems quite unimaginable.  Though, its not very realistic its still a very cool notion, and without its necessity in Star Trek we never would have been blessed with that awesome phrase “Beam me up, Scotty.”

So maybe the writers of Star Trek IV got their inspiration from doing too much LDS, but remember it doesn’t make them double-dumbasses unless they actually believe they obey the laws of phsyics…because they don’t.

Okay my first thought when being told of this assignment was that the title reminded me of the “fat man, little coat” scene from Tommy Boy, as seen:

watch?v=1YWwQZp7r_8

Aside from that first thought, the movie overall presented some interesting perspectives on the whole process it took to create the first nuclear weapons.  I think its portrayal of the differing attitudes, agendas, and motivations behind the weapons were very enthralling.

One of the more noticeable themes presented in the movie was the army’s diligence in forcing the scientist to the progression and invention of the bombs.  Even after the scientists’ explicit moral apprehensiveness and the accident of the nuclear reactors, the military leaders still pushed to execute the creation of the bomb.  I guess it goes to show how much an influence the military can have over science, or how closely they can be intertwined. Unfortunately, war is a time where sometimes morality cannot always be taken into mind, and therefore the use of the atomic bomb was adamantly pushed, and though many American lives were saved, there were many innocent Japanese citizens who were sacrificed instead.  Maybe Russia or Germany would have been responsible for creating the atomic bomb had we not, but there’s always the possibility had we not created the bomb when we did, we would still not be under the constant possibility of a future nuclear holocaust.

As mentioned, another theme presented in the movie was Oppenheimer’s “god complex,”  which I think is not only a relevant theme in this movie, but is applicable to any scientists who hold as much power as he held.  Scientist are often accused for “playing god” or having a “god complex” in their line of work.  This just comes with the territory.  I don’t think all scientists who dabble in research such as genetic manipulation or creating biochemical warfare weapons are all “playing god” as Oppenheimer does in this movie, but it does not mean they do not have the opportunity.  I think when a man is given a lead role behind such an influential development as the atomic bomb it is easy for him to give into a “god complex.”

I thought the love escapade between Kathleen Robinson and Michael Merriman was somewhat cheesy, but was promptly compensated when Michael Merriman is shown being internally fried to death and looking like some sort of modern day Joseph Merrick.  I think it’s pretty medically amazing that such radiation and neutron absorption can deteriate the body so rapidly.

I think the movie put an interesting Hollywood touch on a very interesting historical event.

I perceive nuclear power as a definite power source that we are not fully taking advantage of being that it is a relatively clean, safe, and cost efficient source of energy.  The fact that it emits relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide, especially when compared to the amounts produced by burning coal, and it is very efficient in the generation of energy, as well as being somewhat cheap to produce, the advantages of nuclear power definitely outweigh the possible risks that are at hand.  We would not have to be so heavily dependent upon foreign oil, which would help to lower gas prices, and mean we would be more independent in terms of energy production.  The disadvantages such as nuclear waste and safety concerns are both issues that shouldn’t be taken lightly, but I believe with progressing technology will become less and less of a threat to our communities.  Seeing how it’s already been/being employed, I don’t see how any further use of it won’t hurt as any more than it already has anyhow.  Primarily I think I believe in the use of nuclear power because I believe in the advancements and pursuit of science, and the only way to learn is to continuously pushing forward.

As far as nuclear weapons go I think its regardless if I feel like they should or shouldn’t be used because they were already employed during the bombing of Japan in WWII, so we can all thank the USA for setting that precedent.  Though that was half a century ago, I still believe that the possible use of nuclear weapons is always an option.  The only problem that exists now is that other countries now also have the technology for these weapons, as was seen during the Cold War.  Do I think that we should continue to use them?  Well seeing how I’m more so of a fan of old school samurai hand-on-hand combat, I think large devistating weapons, though they are efficient, aren’t very honorable.  I think as long as two warring countries have the technology for nuclear weapons, and they decide to use them that it will only end in a nuclear holocaust.  So yes, I think it’s very possible for a nuclear holocaust to occur in this day and age.  I think all it really takes are two opposing sides both with leaders that have too much power.

Nuclear power has a very large potential for bettering society and the progression of science, but we as a society have to take the chances and risks necessary to experience this.

I think what this movie has done, as well as the others like it, have just taken a small problem that has starting emerging as being more evident and blown it out of any logical proportion.  They take the fact that the Earth is slowly increasing in temperature due to several environmental influences, and exaggerate on that enough to try and invoke emotions of fear and uncertainty that the everyday-Joe would not be able to distinguish as a fallacy or not.  An example of this is just how fast they show the Earth actually warming.  Most people that know a little bit about chemistry know better that it takes a lot of energy to change the temperature of the ocean by even just a few degrees, but for those who don’t the creators of this movie and take advantage of their gullibility.  In short, it’s basically commercial Hollywood scientific propaganda for the masses.  Could the events of The Day After Tomorrow actually take place?  Well, it’s a possibility, but not only is it a slim chance, it would definitely take much longer than the allotted time the movie presents.

Here’s the notes that I took while enjoying the dramatic entertainment of The Core, most of them are questions and/or just jotted notes:

-impulses to disrupt pacemakers?

-Violent bird storms from magnetic shift of the earth?

-L/Dmax for landing a space shuttle?

-A space ship landing in the LA river…ridiculous.

-High altitude static discharge–lights in the sky

-Electromagnetic field protecting the earth from cosmic radiation?

-Spinning liquid outer core drives EM field?

-Shields the earth from solar winds–microwave radiation

-Break up the Rock/Mantle/Core of the earth with a kidney stone destroying-type gun?

-TiW supercooled crystacals can stop a soundwave/laser gun

-High static electrical storms blow up rome?

-Pressure controlled chambers in the underground ship

-empty space in the mantle of the EArth?

-Ship is able to convert heat energy via solar panel type metal

-Pulsing ultrasonics to signal whales?

….my notes probably aren’t that great, but I am not a geophysicist, not do I pretend that I might be one.  From the perspective of someone watching a movie and critiquing it…it was an awful movie…they should have all been killed.

Honestly, if an asteroid of this size was expected to collide with the Earth resulting in its total destruction, I would have to say that we probably had it coming for a long time.  Therefore, the only real planning I would be doing would be that in the necessary debauchery and bacchanal accompanied with the extinction of all Earthlings.

…But because this assignment isn’t asking what color party streamers I would decorate my house with or the excessive amounts of booze that would be consumed, then I figure this is what I’d propose how to weasle our planet out of this conundrum.

In order for this to work these are the parameters that I would alter:  size of the asteroid and the distance it must travel before predicted impact.

Assuming the velocity is the same, we’ll still use 22,000mph or 9.834m/s.

The mass I would change from the size of Texas to the size of Rhode Island, because simply not everything in Rhode Island is bigger, as it is in Texas, and that will only favor us in the long run.  The distance of Rhode Island at its longest point across is 77Km, so the volume of the asteroid would be calculated using V=(4/3)(3.14)(d/2)^3, which solving for V=2.39×10^14m^3.  Using same density =5500kg/m^3, the mass of the asteroid would be 1.31×10^18Kg

Now that we know the mass, we’ll make another assumption here and assume that the people of NASA and whoever else is involved in monitoring outer space activity, would be as smart to notice something of such size coming long before it was predicted to hit.  So, we’ll just say they discovered it  3.84×10^10m away from the Earth.

Now to calculate the time to impact t=D/V, so t=1,084.6 hours, which I figure is more time than the original impact calculation done in class.

Once again, there will be a bomb, because I enjoy the irony of the use of a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION to save the world and blowing up the asteroid, instead of just blowing ourselves up.  In class we said we’d use one of the Tsar bombs created in Russia, which was about 100 megatons of explosive, and because I enjoy explosions we’ll just say that we have about 10 of these (realistic or not) that we’ll be strapping on some projectile aircraft that can enter outer space and collide perfectly in the side of the asteroid transferring all energy in the perpendicular direction of its original course.  So if we calculate the energy of the bomb it would be 4.184×10^20J.  As a side note, Bruce Willis would be strapped to this bomb as well for agreeing to ever do a movie as bad as this, but because he also played a great role in Pulp Fiction I will pardon him this time…but!  You better know I’m strapping the whole line up of Aerosmith on this bomb so they can play that horrific song form the soundtrack as they are blown into annihilation.

So using the conservation of energy: MEf=MEi

PEf + KEf = PEi + KEi

where PEf and KEi would both equal zero.

Therefore, KEf=PEi , where KEf would be the kinetic energy of the asteroid, which would be 1/2(m)v^2 where v would be the unknown velocity along the y-axis, perpendicular to its trajectory towards the Earth.

PEi would be the potential energy of the wailing Aerosmith explosion projectile of death with a potential energy of 4.184×10^20J.

So, solving for the velocity in the direction of the y-axis of the asteroid which would be 25.27m/s.

Now how far would it move in respect to the Earth whose radius is 6.5×10^6m:

d=vt=(25.27m/s)(1084.6hr)(3600s/hr)=9.9×10^7m, which would mean that the asteroid would miss the Earth.

So this scenario would mean that the Earth would be sparred this time, and would more than likely allow the adequate amount of time for the people of the Earth to destroy it first before any other outside influence.

The scene I have chosen for a critiquing/analysis is during the scene at the barge warehouse when the enemy with the rail gun shoots his accomplice weilding the shotgun and sends him flying back a preposterous distance.  There are two examples of collisions that occur during this scene: 1. the bullet being discharged from the gun barrel and 2. the bullet striking the vicitim.  To calculate the momentum of the shooter being moved backwards, you first need to calculate the momentum of the bullet leaving the gun, as well as the systems initial and final momentum.  The typical mass of a bullet that big would probably be approximately 800g (about the size of a .50 caliber bullet) and it’s initial speed would be zero m/s.  Therefore, the initial momentum of the bullet would be zero.  The man approximately weighs about 80Kg, and his initial speed is also zero, which makes his initial momentum of zero as well, making the initial momentum of the system zero.  This would be given in the equation:

Pi= P(man) + P(bullet) = 0

Now that the initial momentum of the system has been determined, the final momentum of the system must be calculated.  The velcocity of the man is what is being calculated, so to determine the initial momentum of the bullet you must combine the mass 800g x the velocity, which is for an 800g bullet would be 882 m/s, therefore giving it a momentum of 705.6 Kg/(m/s).  So the equation would be filled in as:

P(final) = (80kg)V(man) + 705.6Kg/(m/s)  so,

if P(final) = P(initial), and P(initial)=0, so (80kg)V(man) + 705.6Kg/(m/s) = 0.

when the equation is solved for the velocity of the man it equals -8.82m/s

This would be the theoretical calculated velocity of the man if there was no friction from shooting the gun, but from what the movie shows, he has enough friction to stop from moving.

The second collision occurs when the bullet strikes the man carrying the shotgun, which sends him flying backwards.

We already know the initial momentum of the bullet (705.6Kg(m/s)) and the initial momentum of the man (0 Kg/(m/s)), which makes the initial momentum of the system to equal the momentum of the bullet.  Next we need to know the final momentum of the bullet and the final momentum of the man.  In the scene the bullet is shot straight through the victim, so if we assume there is no friction acting upon the bullet when it passes thorugh the victim, the final momentum of the bullet would still be 705.6Kg(m/s).  If the victim’s mass is 80Kg then the equation for the final momentum of the system would be:

P(final)= 80KgV(victim) + 705.6Kg(m/s)

and the initial momentum of the equation is:

P(initial) = 0 + 705.6Kg , so if P(initial) = P(final) then,

705.6(kg/(m/s)) = 80Kg x V(victim) + 705.6Kg(m/s)

the final velocity if solved would be zero, this is because I did not incoporate or account for the change in speed of the bullet due to the friction applied while passing through the victim.  If a slower velocity was given due to friction, it would have been [V(slower bullet) - 705.6Kg(m/s)]80Kg = V(victim), but maybe it was the intention of the movie makers to show a weapon so powerful that it defied such physics as friction…but an Arnold movie cheesey?  Never.

1.    Opening motorcycle chase scene: How does the motorcycle maintain traction to the road at high speeds through the tight turns without a front or rear wheel slipping from under the rider?  The necessary quantities required to help resolve this question I believe would primarily have to deal with the centripetal force involved between the rider/motorcycle duo and the turns of the road.  If we assumed this was an example of uniform circular motion around a curve, the factors involved would be the combined mass of the motorcycle and the rider, the angle of the turn, the velocity of the rider/motorcycle, and the friction between the tires and the road.  The rider looks fairly stout, and along with the bulletproof vest he has on, I would estimate him to weigh about 200lbs, or 90.7Kg.  Combined with the weight of the motorcycle, which is a 900cc Ducati V-Twin that approximately weighs 420lbs (190.5Kg), about 20lbs more than my 2004 Yamaha R6, the total mass would be 281.2Kg. Given that the van’s tires are pulling loose and squealing through the turns, I would guess that they are traveling at velocity of roughly 45-50mph or 20.1-22.4m/s.  The angle of the turn is hard to estimate, as it’s more of a curve than angle, so it’s more of a combined angle of vectors…maybe? (Insert physics ignorance) From prior riding experience I would guess that the turns appear as 35mph DMV suggested turn speed, which makes it a somewhat sharp turn, but reasonable to take a 50mph.  The last factor, which I don’t really know how to measure either, but I would think would be one of the biggest factors would be the friction between the wheels of the motorcycle and the road.  I believe this is what would allow the motorcycle rider to lean the motorcycle to the angle necessary to ride through the turn at a reasonably quick speed.  I might not be able to tell the friction between the tires and road, but my best guess would be that the motorcycle is probably equipped with Itialian made Pirrelis!
2.    The collision with the oil tanker: What is the shortest distance it would take to turn the boat from running into the tanker perpendicularly to the angle in which they collided with tanker?  Some of the primary physics principles involved in this would obviously be buoyancy of the cruise ship, the velocity of the ship, the mass of the ship, the angle of collision, and the fluid mechanics of the force of the water on the surface area of the rudder and it’s force to move the boat.  The mass of the boat of now-a-day cruise liners according to Royal Caribbean is about 154,407 tons or 140,075,674Kg.   The average speed of cruise ships is about 20 knots, which is about 23mph or 10.3m/s.  The one of the principles of buoyancy is the density of the liquid, which if it were pure water would be approximately 1g/cm3, but due to the salinity of the ocean water, it’s considerably denser.  Other factors of density are the volume of the water, which being the ocean is possibly so large it may be negligible?  The angle of the cruise ship had to move from 90 degrees to what appears to be a guesstimate of 30-40 degrees respectively to the tanker in its path.  The fluid mechanics necessary to turn the rudder would involve the force of the water on the surface of the rudder, which in all honesty I have no clue about…but! I my best guess would be that in order to turn a boat that big, that fast it would take a very large, possibly impossible force to turn the boat that fast.
3.    The cruise ship into the dock: Much like the previous question in hand, how far would it actually take for the boat to come to a complete stop? Once again the main principles at hand would be the velocity of the boat, the weight of the boat, the buoyancy of the boat, and the force of the objects in its projected path.  For buoyancy you would have to know the density of the water, which would be probably about 1.2g/cm3 to possibly 1.5g/cm3, which is slightly denser than pure water due to the salinity.  As referenced from the Royal Caribbean site, most cruise liners go about 20 knots, in the movie it shows to be going about 17 knots, these would translate to about 10.3 and 8.7m/s, respectively.  The mass as stated earlier would be about 140,075,674Kg.  Therefore, in order to determine the distance to stop the ship you would have to calculate the force of the ship with  a change in acceleration, which would end at zero m/s, and subtract out the force/friction of the dock on the cruise ship.