blike Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS Haha, some people have way too much time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Originally posted by blike Haha, some people have way too much time I wish I was one of them :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 it makes me think of the endless times I've had to explain to people why laser weaponry won't work over long distances.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted December 11, 2002 Author Share Posted December 11, 2002 Haha, guess you're going to have to explain yet another time :x "weaponry won't work over long distances...." Why? What exactly is "long distances". I was under the impression the US government was starting production on 5 or 6 of these planes that are equipped with lasers that can shoot down enemy missles, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 11, 2002 Share Posted December 11, 2002 Effective distance of a laser should theoretically be limited only by the power input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 I'm talking about the diffraction limit really, as being the most significant factor, since it would expand a beam so much that you would have to dump incredible amounts of power into it to make it effective over even a few hundreds of kilometres.. the people who were suggesting this thing were considering orbital weaponry, and shooting things from light seconds(!) away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 In space, diffraction should only be caused by the aperture; but in an atmosphere, couldn't more precise methods enable coherency at an effective range? I know laser defense tests over a few hundred kilometers have been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 12, 2002 Share Posted December 12, 2002 Wouldn't they aim the laser with mirrors since it would be pretty hard to track a target with the laser itself? Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 aah, the sorts of beams these people were talking about were realy thin ones. If you have quite a wide beam to start with it's not so much of a problem, though the lasers almost invariably end up being pulsed then. aman: you could probably direct it using a mirror, you'd still run into the problem of aperture size from the source itself though. all the mirror does is fold the beam up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I saw a video where some guys stood spray shooting full auto AK47s with 30 round clips at 50 yds at 9 man sized targets 5 ft apart. They averaged 2 non lethal hits per clip. Then they went semi-auto and aimed hitting up to nine targets lethal in five seconds with nine shots. They also fired tracer bullets into a full car gas tank and the bullets just went out. Over and over and they never got an explosion. They showed the engine block was the only part of a car that will stop a 50 cal. machine gun bullet. It was fascinating stuff to see what really happens. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 aah that reminds me of the infamous explosion scene at the beginning of Swordfish . for those who don't know, basicallt the terrorists strap blocks of explosive (C4 I think) to a person, and also strap several cartons of 2cm ball bearings to them, armed to a location sensor that detonates it if they leave a certain radius. essentially once of the people explodes, throwing cars in the air, and turning alomst everything in the street into a sieve. while it looks nice, it's complete rubbish, since the cars would not have been thrown into the air, and also, at the distances seen in the film, and assuming a hemispherical spread of ball bearings, hardly anything at all should have been hit, at the very least, not with the severity that it was. I'm not entirel sure about the assumption of hemispherical projection on account of the way the ball bearings were strapped to the people, but most of the debunking seems pretty sound. A great site for this sort of thing is ww.nitpickers.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I read The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence Krauss... quite surprising to see how the physics is alot better than you would expect, and the technologies are actually explained with proper terminology. Great reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nacho Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Don't you just hate it when they try to explain fake physics in movies. Example: In "The Core" they said that the core stopped spinning, makin' the magnetic field not work...oy. But, the rest of the earth was spinning, 'cause there was day and night, so wouldn't the rest of the earth spinnin' make the core spin, too? Gosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syntax Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 That's because the people who make those movies are ****ing retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The people who produced The Core certainly were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 The Core? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 my god! just the description of the core: "The only way to save Earth from catastrophe is to drill down to the core and set it spinning again" makes it sound totaly against physics in every single way!!! by the way, blike, that site is really old now and swansont often mentions it when people talk about flashing bullets and movie physics, still its always a good read the 1st time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Lolly Roffles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 by the way, blike, that site is really old now and swansont often mentions it when people talk about flashing bullets and movie physics, still its always a good read the 1st time. He posted that 2 years ago, so I'd cut him a little slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 He posted that 2 years ago, so I'd cut him a little slack. OMG!!!! i never saw!! someone awoke an OLD thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now