Diana Stabers

Though Ironman is one of the coolest superheroes, I chose to analyze an older superhero from DC Comics: Doctor John Henry Irons, aka Steel. 

Man, I like this movie.  What’s even better is that I actually understand a lot more of what’s going on compared to watching this movie when I was11. 

So needless to say, they reversed the “Twin Paradox.”  What’s interesting is that earlier in the movie, Palmer Joss raised the realistic idea of what would happen to Ellie according to Einstein’s special relativity.  He explained that if she went to Vega faster than the speed of light, she would only be four years older while 50 years would have passed on earth.  

When she came through on the other side of the machine, they said the feed had only been lost for a second.  She claimed she had been gone 18 hours (or thereabouts) and was immediately labeled delusional when she tried to explain what she had seen. 

I wanted to know how much time would have passed on earth if they had gotten the “Twin Paradox” right.  Using the equation from class about “Forward Tie Travel,” I’ll use 18 hours for delta t_o and divide by √1- (.99875^2).  The amount of time that should have elapsed on earth would have been about 15 days. (I think)

To uphold the physics of the Twin Paradox would have called for more creativity on the writers’ parts.  They couldn’t exactly have the whole crew still in the control room wondering if she was okay.  Maybe they could have her come out of the machine only after they had her funeral and Palmer found a new girlfriend.  Or worse, they could accidentally kill her somehow by aborting the mission.  (But I guess that would have been the icing on the feminists’ argument cake that Ellie’s mundane life was a typical portrayal of a smart woman from the mind of a “stupid man.”  They will always find something to argue.)

Oh and I forgot to mention the sweet melt-away door frame action after she was sealed into the capsule.  That was dreamy.

“Time warp drive,” better known as simply warp drive, has been a feature of star trek since the original series. This was handy feature given the vast emptiness of space. If the ship was to travel at normal velocities, it would take hundreds, maybe thousands of years to travel all over space. The show would be far less exciting if they were restricted to the confines of attainable physics. I didn’t know the exact numbers or units of measure that are used in for warp speed in Star Trek (and Lawrence Krauss wasn’t easy to follow), so I looked them up:

“Star Trek artist Michael Okuda devised a formula based on the original one but with important differences. For warp 1–9, if w is the warp factor, s(w) is the speed in km per second, and c is the speed of light, then . In the half-open interval from warp 9 to warp 10, the exponent of w increases toward infinity. Thus, in the Okuda scale, warp speeds approach warp 10 asymptotically. There is no exact formula for this interval because the quoted speeds are based on a hand-drawn curve.”

Another amazing technological advance we see in the world of Star Trek is (my personal favorite) the transporter. The teleportation machine de-materializes people or objects, and beams their particles of energy to where ever Scotty decides, I guess. (I have never followed Star Trek, so correct me if I’m wrong in any of this.)

Anyways, this little device allowed for the ship to avoid landings and take-offs, which could eat up a lot of time in every episode. Not to mention actually getting on and off the ship (as Richard pointed out, those stairs didn’t move very fast.) In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, they actually did land the ship in the park, but they remained on earth for a majority of the plot. This machine also saved our characters from a number of situations during the film, and was also responsible for the Whale Lady (I can’t remember her name) to climb aboard and take off into space with the crew.

Needless to say, after watching this movie, terrible clichés such as “Beam me up Scotty” make more sense to me.

I enjoyed this film mostly because I like Paul Newman. The acting in the film wasn’t outstanding, and there was no substantial character development.  But overall it was interesting and I learned a lot about the Manhattan Project.  

A team of scientists working on one project all at once—cut off from the outside world— could have prompted more comedic results than it did.  A team of people who are all completely brilliant in different ways should have had a lot more color and dynamic.  There should have been more tension within the group of scientists, especially with the deadline and the work pace set by the military.  To me, egos would have played a much, much larger role in whose ideas were used or not.  I also would have expected more objections to the development of the project given its intended purpose and magnitude. Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist, was said to be very charismatic, and was in charge of this team.     

Speaking of “Oppi” (spelling?), his character was interesting.  Though he was well-casted as far as looking like Oppenheimer, he was not very convincing. I imagined someone in his position to be a little more stressed out.  Though he began as the decisive and collected individual history describes him as, there was not a drastic change from before and after the project.  Yes, they show him slowly cracking under the pressure, but I felt like the director could have made it more convincing.  He didn’t look like he was losing sleep over the matter.  The only thing he really did was smoke a ton of cigarettes.  Working under the pressure of his colleagues as well as General Groves looked like a situation that could drive anyone to insanity.

General Groves was my favorite character.  He was that perfect blend of ass-kicker and logical thinker.  The best scene for weighing Groves and Oppenheimer’s personalities against each other was during their dinner together.  Groves described himself as a realist because he didn’t come from money, whereas Oppi, who came from money, was an optimist and therefore, wanted to be moral in his decisions against using the atomic bomb.  Groves summed up the situation to Oppi, “You’re either for us or against us.”

*I apologize if my thoughts were not well articulated and lacking depth.  There are two boys in the library that want everyone here to know their personal business and I had a hard time focusing.*

Given the fact that I had to read over other people’s articles and opinions on nuclear energy, I clearly don’t have a strong opinion on the pros and cons of this topic.  This isn’t because I don’t care, but because I am uneducated on the matter.  As a result of this ignorance, I researched the actual subject of nuclear energy (not the debate surrounding it) so that I could formulate my own ideas about the energy source/weapon/whatever it is. 

Nuclear energy extracts usable energy from nuclei through various nuclear reactions such as fission, radioactive decay, or fusion.  We generate electricity or propulsion by converting steam into mechanical work.  According to Wikipedia, more than 15% of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear energy.  (Sounds pretty good.)

Nuclear weapons are explosives that come from the force of nuclear reactions. Nuclear weapons have only been used on two occasions (Fat Man and Little Boy).  A nuclear bomb has the power to destroy entire cities.  Some nuclear weapons include fission bombs, thermonuclear bombs, neutron bombs, and boosted fission weapons.  (Not so good.)

The pros and cons on nuclear energy are not endless, but the debate on the matter seems to be ongoing.  Unfortunately, with something as powerful as nuclear energy, there will always be arguments surrounding its existence.  It’s a fairly cheap form of energy, and keeps us independent for a reliable energy source.  On the other hand, meltdowns can occur and dangerous amounts of nuclear waste and radiation are by-products. Not to mention nuclear weapons.

To initiate nuclear war would be senseless.  If other countries control nuclear energy sources, what’s to stop the world from blowing itself up? Peace treaties, peace treaties, peace treaties.  As long as everyone keeps their finger off the big red button, we can continue to enjoy the nondestructive benefits of nuclear energy.   Even tactical weapons should stay off the market.  The minute people get their foot through the door to use nuclear weapons, the problem will escalate into larger proportions.  If you give someone an inch, they will take a mile.  Better to restrict all use of any nuclear weaponry.

Could a nuclear holocaust occur today? Sure. I sincerely hope it doesn’t, but anything is possible with the wrong people in power or if this technology falls into the wrong hands.  Any normal person could see the consequences of waging nuclear war, however you’re bound to be disappointed if you constantly put your trust in the integrity of human beings. 

So it’s either this… 

or this…

I feel like nuclear energy can be a balance of good and bad.  I realize many people would disagree with me.  I also realize there is a good chance I’m wrong in that statement.  But I suppose that is the root of the debate.  Does the good outweigh the bad?

As human beings, we have a talent for coming up with reasons for why something is negative.  We naturally focus on the bad parts of things.  By the same token, it’s unwise to ignore large chunks of information simply because it goes against your own claims on a topic.   We can’t assume there are no consequences to using nuclear energy or even maintaining its existence.  So after writing on the topic, I feel slightly more educated to possibly carry on a conversation with someone about it, however, I do not know the answer to the debate.  If I did I would have retired by now.

“The Day After Tomorrow” is one of hundreds of pieces that can affect our perceptions on issues such as global warming.  The media has a way of cultivating realities through dissemination of information to mass audiences whether those realities exist or not.  In this particular case, one might feel correct in fearing drastic climate changes with little warning accompanying the effects of global warming.

The movie portrays a dismal and extreme outlook for when the causes of global warming finally affect us.  Temperatures drop from hot to freezing in hours, an ice age moves south, tornadoes form in LA, and hail the size of bowling balls strikes Tokyo.  From what I’ve gathered on the subject, these changes probably won’t happen all at once, if at all.  Maybe the director of this movie was just going for crazy plot twists or amazing visual effects, but this movie is in the same boat as all the other global warming propaganda. 

The movie has the same plot as “the core” as far as scientists trying to convince political leaders of the danger that is about to ensue.  Naturally, the politicians are once again depicted as the money-hungry arrogant bastards they always are in movies, and the lowly scientist leaves in an emotional tizzy.  Shortly thereafter—guess what—they find out the scientist was right all along, and then they are in a tough situation where decisions need to be made, and immediate action needs to be taken.  When will those politicians learn?

According to the cultivation theory used in mass media, what we see in the media is how we perceive the world.  In other words, the mass media can manipulate what is “important” by what they choose to emphasize.  The mass media does not always tell us what to think, they tell us what to think about.   “The Day After Tomorrow,” as well as many other movies, shows, or news broadcasts, makes me think about how I should prepare for the climate changes in the upcoming decades by moving south, reduce the size of my carbon footprint, and hope for the best.

I’m not sure what to think.  I’m a natural skeptic, and unwilling to rule out any possibility.  Global warming has never been something I had strong feelings about one way or another, and as a result, I like to think I remain relatively detached from these types of movies.  A person who may not have a working knowledge of this topic, however, could be easily persuaded into thinking global warming is something they need to fear (whether that’s true or not.)

Well I’m no expert on movies or physics, but the core was a terrible movie with terrible physics.  After the pigeon scene 15 minutes in (which was one of the few things they did right), the movie pretty much goes downhill.  We’ll ignore the fact the pigeons were flying so fast they went through windshields and busted the sides of concrete buildings.

We can start with Dr. Keyes’s depiction of what would happen to the earth if it lost its magnetic field.  A flaming peach probably doesn’t accurately portray what would happen to the earth.  Because my physics knowledge is limited, I don’t really know what would happen if the earth’s core stopped.  Incineration makes for an effective visual however inaccurate it may be.

Moving on, how did that space shuttle not crash into the scaffolding? Or anything else for that matter?  I know nothing about flying aircrafts, but that entire scene was ridiculous. Not only did they not manage to completely destroy their aircraft as they skid across the ground at high speed, but they were lucky enough to stop sliding across the LA River just in time to avoid crashing into a construction site.  Good thing we had rookie pilot Rebecca Childs on board to man up and take control of the situation (which doesn’t really defy physics but it certainly defies something.)

Back to the actual core of the earth: If the core slowed down, theoretically, the earth would speed up its rotation to compensate for this change.   If this happened, we’d all be in for a fun ride.  Pretty much everything on earth would crumble and wreck.  But not with the movie magic capabilities of the core.

To briefly name some other questions about this movie:

-          What were diamonds doing down in the earth’s core?

-          How and why did lightning destroy every single stone structure and statue in Rome?

-          Unobtanium and all its wonder? Enough said.

-          Why was there a gap of empty space once they bore down into the mantle?

-          Why did whales respond to the signals they were sending out?

-          The net force of each bomb was zero because it had no directionality, so why did the plan work?

I don’t think I’ll ever need/want to watch this movie again.

My original plan to save the world included several changes to the circumstances to ensure the safety or everyone on the planet.  I changed the mass of the asteroid from 5.54×10^21 kg to a more manageable 5.54×10^12 kg.  I then gave NASA 30 days before the asteroid hit us to give us ample to time blow it off its path so it missed the earth.  The final variables of the asteroid and the space shuttle were the following:

Asteroid (a):

distance from earth= 2.55×10^10 m

v= 9,843 m/s

m= 5.54×10^12 kg

t= 719.63 hrs.

Shuttle (s):

m= 2.1 x 10^5 kg

v= 9,843 m/s

p= 2.07×10^9 kg/m/s

My original plan was to place a 10,000 megaton warhead aboard a suicide shuttle aimed to ram into the side of the asteroid to knock it off course.  I quickly realized that only the shuttle was necessary to save the world given the asteroid’s distance from the earth. So, all the was left to calculate was the asteroids final velocity after the collision to find out if its exploded remnants would indeed miss the earth. So…

pf=pi

pi= ps + pa

pi= 2.07×10^9 kg/m/s + 5.45×10^16 kg/m/s

pi= 5.45×10^16 kg/m/s

pf= ps + pa

pf= 0 kg/m/s + 5.54×10^12 kg/m/s

pf= 5.54×10^12 kg/m/s (va)

So…

if… 5.54×10^12 kg/m/s (va) = 5.45×10^16

then… Va= 9,837 m/s

Now that we have the asteroid remains’ final velocity, we can figure out if the collision was enough to send it passed earth safely. Since the earth has a radius of 6.5×10^6 m, the asteroid will have to travel that distance in order to safely clear earth.  Luckily, I overestimated on pretty much everything, and the debris flew off course by 4.25×10^8 m.  I used d=vt to find this distance and compared this number with the radius of the earth, giving me 4.158×10^8 m.  The asteroid passes on safely through space and misses the earth completely.

The scene from Eraser I want to analyze is when Arnold sends two men flying backward after shooting them with a hand held rail gun.  I want to analyze one of the collisions between one of the men (m), and the bullet (b) from the rail gun (whatever it is they shoot,) using the principle of conservation of linear momentum.  I need to find the momentum (mass and velocity) of both the man and the bullet, and I will assume the system is isolated. 

Given a realistic gun resembling a rail gun shoots a metal rod off the side of a tank, I estimated the mass of the bullet to be about 1 kg, and a velocity of the shot fired to be 1,000 m/s.  The man shot probably weighed about 180 lbs. giving him a mass of around 90 kg.

Estimated Values:

Man                       Bullet

M= 90 kg              M= 1 kg

V= ?                       V= 1,000 m/s

Pi=Pf

Pi= (Mm)(Vm) + (Mb)(Vb)

Pi= (90kg) Vm + (1 kg)(1,000 m/s)

Pi= 90kg + 1,000 kg/m/s

90kg= -1,000 kg/m/s

Pi= -11.1 m/s

Pf= (Mm)(Vm) + (Mb)(Vb)

Pf= (90kg)(0 m/s) + (1kg)(0 m/s)

Pf= 0 m/s^2

Pf= 0

The first scene I analyzed was when the captain was thrown overboard (reminiscent of the Batman scene we watched in class.) I wanted to know how far the captain fell before he hit the water. The relevant quantities I need to calculate the distance are the time it takes for him to fall and his acceleration. It took him about 4 seconds to hit the water falling at the gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2, so I estimate the deck being as high as about 40 meters.

The second scene I analyzed was when the ship collided with the tiny sailboat (the one that exploded).  I wanted to measure the force at which the ship hit the tiny boat. The relevant quantities to find the impact are acceleration and mass of the cruise ship. The cruise ship has a mass of 51000 tons (4.62E7 kg).  I don’t know how to get the acceleration of the ship, so this analysis has hit a dead end.  I’m confused as to what the time would be for the period of acceleration.

The third scene I analyzed was when the ship collides with the dock.  I wanted to measure the deceleration of the ship as it plowed through half the town.  The relevant quantities are initial velocity, final velocity, and time.  The initial velocity was 3.598 m/s^2, the final velocity was 0 m/s^2, and the time was 150 seconds.  Therefore, the deceleration (or negative acceleration) of the ship was .02 m/s^2.