Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Small Media at Large
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-April-2003, 07:50 PM
FP FP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Columbia, Mississippi
Posts: 216
Default

Comixx,

a choke hold is a slightly different case. In the event of cardiac arrest, or dysrhythmia such as ventricular fib or tach, the blood pressure drops to zero ( or near enough as to not matter.) an experiment to illustrate: (caution: professionals at work. DO NOT try this at home!) Go without water for two days to get good and dehydrated. Lie down for 30 minutes, then jump up to a standing position, and see how long it takes to pass out. Only a second or two. Even the tightest choke hold cannot block the flow of the vertebral arteries, so the BP at the brain won't drop all the way to zero. (Exception -- older people with significant blockages of the vertebrals, but they would pass out in just a few seconds. )

Blood pressure is the factor in conciousness, not oxygen. The brain can survive about four minutes without oxygen, but cannot maintain conciousness without blood pressure for more and 2-3 seconds.
__________________
I am a doctor, but I don't play one on TV.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-April-2003, 08:44 PM
Comixx's Avatar
Comixx Comixx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Angeles / Phoenix
Posts: 346
Send a message via AIM to Comixx Send a message via Yahoo to Comixx
Default

Well, I was trying to agree to the quick passout scenario, actually, so thanks for the clarification We know that movies often take events which take some time and compress that time for convenience sake (most Americans have a 4 second attention span for watching a room with no action taking place...which is why a good many movies will never linger on a scene cut for more than 4 seconds if no action is going on...count it out sometime...but dont use 2001, it's an obvious exception to this rule)

As ever, my objection is with the EMP and it's selective effects
__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-April-2003, 09:28 PM
kilopi's Avatar
kilopi kilopi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by g99
Kilopi:

If you read my addition to the end i said to disreguard the quote because i got what you ment by normal fault, etc. It was a messup on my part where i said fault and ment boundry.

I was saying that you were correct, i was not dissagreeing with you.
Cool. I didn't read the addition until just now. I think it was NASA that confused things (just ask the HB's), because I think it was their website that used "divergent fault" and "convergent fault."

But I ain't ever going to point out any of Comixx's typos, 'cause they know too much about choke holds.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-April-2003, 10:31 PM
g99 g99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingdom of Florida
Posts: 2,918
Send a message via AIM to g99
Default

Done.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 04:24 AM
tracer tracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA
Posts: 2,083
Default

Ooh! Ooh! My turn to nitpick on g99's review!!

g99, in your review, you say:

"So instead of going just beyond L.A. to the desert or landing in a large field, they try to be dramatic and with their handy L.A. tour guide map they decide to land in the concrete river (as seen in Terminator 2.). It sure is handy that they carry a map of L.A. in the shuttle. Good thinking NASA!."

Actually, I noticed the map she was carrying. It was a standard sectional aeronautical chart for the Los Angeles area, the kind used by all pilots (private, airliner, or what have you).



Cheap plug: And here's MY review of The Core!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 05:24 AM
g99 g99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingdom of Florida
Posts: 2,918
Send a message via AIM to g99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tracer
Ooh! Ooh! My turn to nitpick on g99's review!!


Actually, I noticed the map she was carrying. It was a standard sectional aeronautical chart for the Los Angeles area, the kind used by all pilots (private, airliner, or what have you).

Cheap plug: And here's MY review of The Core!
:-) I let everyone have a crack at it. It makes me feel special.

But whay would NASA give them a map of LA?

Do aeronotical maps show concrete rivers? Could'nt they land on a highway or something? That way they don't have to avoid the bridges.



Liked your review tracer.

Three things:

1.In one comic where the hulk is battling Wolverine it was revealed that the hulks invulnerability is not because he get stronger as he gets hurt, it is that he has a extreemly fast healing rate. Almost instantaneous. I can't rember the issue.

2. The Unobtanium was mentioned early in the film that it turns heat and pressure into energy. So Keyes was just repeating what was mentioned earlier.

The thing is, as they go closer to the surface would not the pressure become lessened? So the emount of energy being produced by the hull would lessen and they would slow down. Right? (not counting the whole constant pressure=no energy thing)

3. They are shown coming up near Hawaii. Hawaii is right over a hotspot on the earth. Actually it is a result of one.

One theory i have heard is that the magma from the hotspot originates from near the outer core boundry. So they could possibly follow the magma as it goes up. Other theories of the origin of Hot spots is just a weakining of the crust there for some reason.

The one thing that got me there was that at the begining they mentioned that Vergil couldn't turn for the life of it. But as it was traveling up the magma flow it turned better than any submarine i know. I guess all those lost sections made it harder to turn.
__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 11:38 AM
Glom's Avatar
Glom Glom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: University of Birmingham
Posts: 6,649
Send a message via MSN to Glom
Default

Nice review, tracer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tracer
It's sloppy science like this that makes your average yokel afraid of nuclear power reactors because he thinks they can explode in a mushroom cloud at any time.
F****** A, Bubba. We need nuclear space propulsion, but the NU-CU-LAR boogey man makes everyone to scared.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 04:18 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Rotten to "The Co

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
Finally! I reviewed The Core.

wo, I bet.

e math I went through to calc
its true: 7:21 A.M. pst
From : MIDIOGRE Number : 178 of 179
To : HUB Date : 04/05/03 7:59pm
Subject : welcome Reference : 168
Read : 04/06/03 7:49am Private : NO

Hub - its OK for you to post those Alvord pictures elsewhere. - m

Ok? Ok Wo's math? Mathametica {i doubt it}1 Maple{Maybe}2
MatLab{ an also ran } Other..ye probably a Texas Insterment ( Boo 9 7 &4 ).
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 04:28 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Angular vs C&H' word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

angular rotation rate is (I'll have that noted in my math page) That 2 x pi / period, or 6.28/(86400 seconds) = 0.000072.
386T = PST 7:32 A.M.
I sure wish mathAmagic
was done 1 line at a time
so I could delete lines
instead of letters as I
must do ..7:33 A.M.
anyway I have not even seen
ONE post by Pi much less 2
wo's pullin whos leg here anyway
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 04:33 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yes ? it was ?/?

Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_watters
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer
In my calculations, the velocity of the core is not important, the angular rotation rate is (I'll have that noted in my math page). That is basically 2 x pi / period, or 6.28/(86400 seconds) = 0.000072. I put in the line about "1000 mph" because it's in the movie. In fact, that line is wrong. The outer core is 3500 km in radius, so the velocity is really only 570 mph. I'll have to add that as well!
24 hour period? Just like the rest of the earth? So then the core really is NOT rotating in relation to the surface of the earth? Isn't that another bad astronomy point then?

core rotating with respect to the surface of the Earth or not?
yeah another letter by letter deletion
oh never mind
From : MIDIOGRE Number : 178 of 179
To : HUB Date : 04/05/03 7:59pm
Subject : welcome Reference : 168
Read : 04/06/03 7:49am Private : NO

Hub - its OK for you to post those Alvord pictures elsewhere. - m

http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00782
{by next Friday} 3-4-11
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 05:41 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by g99
1.In one comic where the hulk is battling Wolverine it was revealed that the hulks invulnerability is not because he get stronger as he gets hurt, it is that he has a extreemly fast healing rate.
Ah -- I guess the phrasing in my review was rather ambiguous. When I said that Unobtainium gets stronger the more pressure it's subjected to, "just like the Hulk," I was referring to the Hulk's old addage, "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by g99
2. The Unobtanium was mentioned early in the film that it turns heat and pressure into energy. So Keyes was just repeating what was mentioned earlier.
Oops, I missed that. They must've said it too quickly. I still wanna know how turning it into "energy" automatically means it produces electricity, though.




There's one other nitpick I should have put in my review, but forgot to: When the space shuttle was gliding in toward Los Angeles, its descent angle was way too shallow. In real life, the space shuttle has a glide path like a bowling ball -- it doesn't so much "glide" in as undergo a controlled fall. (In fact, to mimic the lift and drag characteristics of the space shuttle while training its pilots, they take them up to 30,000 feet altitude in a specially modified business jet, then put down full flaps, full spoilers, all air brakes, and run the engines in reverse.)
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 06:25 PM
g99 g99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingdom of Florida
Posts: 2,918
Send a message via AIM to g99
Default

One question: When the shuttle is careening throught the concrete river, they use the flight controlls to steer the craft. Could they really do that? I mean the rudder should have able to turn the craft on the ground, but that fast?
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 07:55 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA
Posts: 2,083
Default

Do you mean before, or after, they retracted the landing gear while on the ground?

The reason I ask is that, in light airplanes, the rudder pedals typically double as the nose-wheel steering mechanism. You push the left pedal down, and both the rudder and the nose wheel will deflect to the left. Large planes, such as airliners, typically have a steering lever that's separate from the rudder controls, but I don't know which scheme the Space Shuttle uses. SO, if you're talking about them steering with the flight controls on the ground before they retracted the landing gear, then they may have actually been steering the nose wheel.

After the landing gear was retracted is another matter. Remember when they deployed their "air brake"? The rudder split in half, and both halves of the rudder stuck out in opposite directions to reduce their drag. I seriously doubt that any rudder control was possible after that point.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 08:03 PM
g99 g99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingdom of Florida
Posts: 2,918
Send a message via AIM to g99
Default

Before the landing gear retracted. Thanks! :-)
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 06-April-2003, 09:32 PM
Glom's Avatar
Glom Glom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: University of Birmingham
Posts: 6,649
Send a message via MSN to Glom
Default

The interesting think about unobtanium is that it needs thermal energy to do its thang. So it's basically turning energy into energy.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 08-April-2003, 12:58 AM
tracer tracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA
Posts: 2,083
Default

It was hard to tell from the dialog in the movie as they were descending into the ocean, but I was under the impression that in order for Unobtainium to become temperature-resistant, it had to be subjected to high pressures. (The designer was worried that the pressure around them in the deep ocean wasn't getting high enough to protect them once they started drilling into the Earth.)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today