Anyone See the Movie "Deja Vu"?

What data or evidence have you evaluated in order to arrive at your belief that wormholes cannot be created? I have not seen the movie yet, but the trailer looked interesting. Have you tried looking at a painting in a frame on the wall,(or a movie for that matter) and putting aside the world that you are comfortable with. If you get close enough, there is no outside world and your experience can be based purely on whatever is offered by the work. As long as you sit back with the attitude of "its just a movie", you will never be able to experience the full depth of the artists vision. This technique can also be used in reverse so that after you are dumped by a loved one, you can look back at the past and say "That was a great movie. It is a pity that it will never show again, but I will always remember the good bits". You can then get on with your life, no worries mate.

Is it too far off topic to ask for a physical explanation of why, in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, when IJ and bint head into the catacombs with a flaring torch made from a leg bone and rags from a convenient corpse, dripping flames into the liquid petrol below, no raging infoerno results...BUT... when the bad guys arrives, and one drops a lighted match on the surface of the pertrol, the fumes ignite and go racing through the tunnels?

When I saw the film, I commented after the first half of the scene and was told by my then bf that "it's just a film". I acquiesed, until the match incident, at which point the entire cinema heard my "You can't have it both ways"!!

As you can tell it still bugs me.

Thank you for letting me get this off my chest. My name is English Rose and I take films too seriously....

I'm glad I'm not the only one that watches films and will suddenly burst out laughing at these scientific / engineering 'blunders' in a plot!!

I was thrown out of a cinema once for laughing (very loudly!) at an absurd scientific blunder..... It was a very serious film...

John.

Artistic liberty and cold hard science always seem to butt heads...but at least they can spark discussion.

To add to the mix: Die Hard 2, 3, or 47...I don't remember which, but Bruce Willis lighting jet fuel with a bic lighter...that was a subtle simplification. Worst of all I don't think he threw in the Yippey-ki-ay *%@& part...

It doesn't have to be a cinema. The media now uses gadgets in their CSI labs that make "real" crime lab technicians laugh. If the so-called "high tech" equipment used in their investigations truly existed, they could solve all crimes in 1 hour.

You need to visit this site

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

Enjoy!

They even doctor up documentaries. I remember seeing a clip where the commentator was explaining how due to high humidity, one could actually see the shock wave progress from an explosion down the side of a mountain. But when you saw the flash of the explosion, there was a simultaneous boom on the sound track, even though you could visible see that the shock wave had not gotten to the camera yet.

War documentaries are the worse. They have someone like Walter Chronkite narrating the events and then throw in some completely unrelated video taken from some other action (The navy did not have Hellcats during the Battle of Midway).

Yeah - like when a WW2 film shows an individual getting into a train in 'British Railways' livery - 'British Railways' didn't exist until 1948!

As for taking things too seriously: join the club!

My favorite was the mis-pronounciation of gigawatt and the "flux-capacitor" on BTF.

i have a question.........does anyone know how the flux capacitor is used to facilitate time travel? this has puzzled me for a few years now and i couldn't get an answer from any of my professors in college. Ha!

I think it stores tachions instead of electrons and releases them to create a wormhole..

I feel like I've seen that movie, maybe when I was a kid; but I'm not sure.

Yeah I get the same feeling sometimes..like I've seen it before, weird isn't it?

Forget about 'Deja Vu"-better to worry about the characters who make these movies being paraded out on national television with their solutions to major world problems....and being taken seriously. Now that is worth worrying about. JEJ

I realize you should relax into a movie and enjoy it as entertainment. I can accept time travel and other sci fi plots that are unrealistic.

I do have a problem with time travel where the character overlaps his own time. Like in the movie about the modern aircraft carrier that sails into a spiraling storm and is suddenly back in 1941 before Pearl Harbor. In the movie one naval officer gets left behind and with his knowledge of modern weapons becomes a very rich industrialist at the end of the movie.

Lets say he is 30 years old in 1980 then travels back to 1941.

Riddle me this Batman. Where is he in 1970. Is he a 20 year old recruit starting his naval career or is he a 59 year old industrialist with knowledge of the future.

I don't believe that (if time travel was possible) a person could exist simultaneously in two time-lines. If he was in 1941 then he would disappear in 1980 and vise-versa.

There were a ton of other things wrong with the movie - e.g. the guy goes back in the past to save a girl and in the process has several high speed chases which causes 40+ accidents and most likely deaths, but he does save the girl so the people who got in a car accident because his wreckless driving should be overlooked? Some hero.

Anyhow, I was just curious what people know about the subject - I'd like to know more. That website that reviews physics in movies is a great resource. I hope they do an analysis of this movie - just because the topic is interesting.

Further, this movie is a little different than some other movies where there are just ASPECTS of the movie that are scientifically impossible (e.g. The Matrix - that's just overdone fighting scenes for actions). This movie's basic premise is based on science - so it's a little more relevant - in my opinion.

My thought is that he'd be a 59 year old - that just makes logical sense to me. That's why you shouldn't mess around with time travel - you might end up dying before you were actually born. You could make money winning sports bets though and inventing stuff.

Yeah, If you could go back 10 minutes or so you could win the lottery.

But in those 10 minutes an awful lot could happen...

There once was a lady from Bright

Who could travel faster than light

She left one day, in a relative way

And returned the previous night.

That's good! JEJ

I have not read all the entries yet as I got a late start on my daily reading. I also have not seen the movie yet. But it seems to me that light has a definate and fixed speed of travel. It is not instantaneous. Therefore "everything" we see with our eyes is looking into the past to some degree. If we could project a realtime movie of ourselves to a mirror that reflects it back to us and we placed the mirror far enough away wouldn't we see our reflection from 4 days ago? (Far fetched I realize, but theoradically possible.)

You must step back and understand that there really is no such thing as time. Time is a man made invention. It is only a means for us to relate to change. Looking in the mirror is only looking a the state of what was oringinally observed. A changed state your optial nerve system. JEJ

Wtf? Either your brilliant and unable to explain this to us laymen (lame-os) or you're whacked on some bad weed and THINK you're brilliant and are making no sense. :D

No weeds allowed in the forum, just interesting points of view. JEJ

When you go out and gaze at the stars you are seeing the past. What we see are things that are in a state that existed millions of years ago. We can't even be sure that they still exist! Fascinating. JEJ

Jowens, just another thought, but if you could place the mirror far enough away to see yourself a few days ago....

To place the mirror that far you'd have to travel over the speed of light, and to return of course...

If, however, someone had placed a mirror far enough away then we would be able to see ourselves as we were in the past...

1 light year away would equal 2 years in our past...

Hmmmmmm suppose the stars we are seeing now in the universe were really reflections of our solar system as it was at different times in the past???

John....

I saw 'Deja Vu'. Having suspended my disbelief, I rolled with it, for the most part. My main issue is that they obviously had to chop a ton of information out of the final version so that it didn't run too long and ended up with a lot of explanation and a sappy ending without anything other than brief eye contact to suggest the deep connection the two characters have from that sense of you-know-what. I want to know what the original storyline included! I bet it was REALLY interesting! From the previews, I knew we'd be watching scenes again and saying, "oh yeah -- remember when she said that?", so I paid close attention. At one point, a cell phone in a body bag rings. I'd BET that, in one of the chopped scenes, he gets killed on the boat. She also picks up the call when her friend is leaving a message and asks if the friend is joking -- it seemed there was more to that comment. I bet LOTS of bad crap goes down, which explains why the replay team is crying so much over the other ATF agent's death -- a chopped scene; they obviously knew him (they were asking for him at the beginning) and he knew about the project -- a fact not mentioned in the final version. Word.

Btw, the book 'Replay' is pretty decent for dealing with reliving one's own timeline again and again (in the same body), having full memory each time, but having the ability to change time (win the lottery, etc.)

Oh -- does anyone remember the movie 'Event Horizon'? Piece of crap. They describe the concept of folding time... then completely lose the plot and the movie turns into a horror film with no redemption. Ugh.

Event Horizon - totally agree.

Sliding Doors was a much better film from a "technical" viewpoint. I don't think I found fault with that.

This is a little off to the side... but... In a novel I read, we had a surveilance satellite in a "parking orbit" over the north pole, for monitoring the northern hemisphere continuously. So far as I know, any orbit MUST be elliptical, with one focal point being the center of the earth, which means that the satellite must eventually circle the earth. Of course, the orbit might be very highly elliptical, in which it could keep the northern hemisphere in view for a long time, but eventually it would have to make a really screaming run around the south pole to stay in orbit. Right?

This particular author is usually pretty good in his physics,so I sacrifice his ooops for a pretty good story.

Hmmm that's an interesting thought, a geostationary satellite orbits the Earth at the same speed as the Earth rotates so it appears to be stationary in the sky above us etc...

But that only applies at the equator doesn't it? At the poles its impossible to have a geostationary satellite...

Or is it too early in the morning for my brain?!!

John.

Electroman wrote in reply to the post before his: " a geostationary satellite orbits the Earth at the same speed as the Earth rotates so it appears to be stationary in the sky above us etc... But that only applies at the equator doesn't it? At the poles its impossible to have a geostationary satellite..."

Yep, without spending exorbitant amounts of fuel, a true parking orbit above the poles isn't possible. But, with unlimited supply of energy in sci-fi... Just boost it up straight and high from the pole. Before it eventually re-enters, boost it up again, ad infinitum. I'm not sure if this will cost less fuel than just continuously boosting it slightly to keep it at the same height. Someone cares to make the calcs?

I suppose I should have said its impossible to have a geostationary satellite overhead at the poles.

It would be perfectly okay to have a satellite in orbit around the equator and then even at the poles it would be in a fixed place in the sky, albeit low down near the horizon!

John.

My favorite is the movie "Signs" (spoiler warning) where at the end it is found out that water kills the aliens yet the humidity of the air seems to have no effect.

I saw the last 10 minutes of this (didn't know what it was called). I was totally bemused, as I'm sured it had rained...

So many movies, so much invalid 'science' to crack you up!

...but isn't it fun being the only one in the theater who 'gets it' and starts laughing at the most inopportune times?

My family and friends alternately love and/or hate going to movies with me. I love to enjoy myself and get into the story, but can't keep myself from finding it immensely amusing to hear butchered explanations of basic facts - or hastily thrown-in justifications for the latest fad like the environmentalist crap they feed into every scene they can (like the suddenly fish-hugging anti-human posturing in Happy Feet).

Case in point - although a single volcano or even a relatively minor million-acre forest fire spews more noxious fumes and 'greenhouse gases' into the environment than all the SUV's on the planet, we're supposed to believe that every movie we see can simply make the assumption that human activity is causing global warming? puhlease.

Think any of them have ever estimated the approximate increase in energy the earth is exposed to by a relatively minor (astronomically) increase of a few percent in solar activity? Hint: It dwarfs all the energy 'trapped' by all the human-activity-based gases ever released in all of human history. Want to limit GH gases? Clear-cut access roads through ALL major stands of timber, and sell off the biomass of all forest undergrowth or fallen timber that any company is willing to collect (let 'em make ethanol or pulp or anything they want out of it). Stop the spread of forest fires = save the rest of the trees = cleaner air than driving a hybrid, though not as efficient. Hybrid's still need to be developed further.

If we could only get Hollywood to focus - not on CO2, required for nice healthy green plants - but on the actual toxins that are being released by humans, which have an order-of-magnitude greater chance of affecting life on the planet than the current temperature of Greenland. Personally, I think Anchorage would make a great beach resort.

Meanwhile, can anyone explain the amazingly unstable effects of gravity on the opening scene (plunging ship) in Episode III? My geeky StarWars side was warring with my brain nearly the entire show, though I still just had to see it (at 12:01am)...Unscientific science, ridiculous philosophy, scifi-paganism, impossible physics, infantile military tactics, immoral morals, and bad acting...and we still pay to enjoy all the cool special effects!

And then there's The Day After Tomorrow (cringe & shudder) which was mis-marketed and should have been sold as a black comedy making fun of enviro-wackiness...my wife nearly threw me out of the theater herself - talk about Deja Vu! You gotta luv Hollywood - they may be clueless, but they know how to package a bad storyline!

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it...anybody else here remember getting a huge grin when hearing that Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to be facing a new hand-held rifle (in Eraser, I think?) that fires at "nearly the speed of light" - yikes! Can you imagine the sore shoulder you'd have after firing that puppy? Well, after you find your shoulder over in Cleveland, anyway...

Regarding Happy Feet, I can only say that it was "cute". If it had any further intrinsic social value, it was probably well hidden underneath the ice. In any case, I would not pay to see it again, and have no plans to buy the DVD when it comes out

i saw it ... 4 days ago

But i want to go back to "un-see" it

Maybe they could run the movie backwards for you.

Actually, having considered this subject at great length, I've decided I'm less concerned at the deplorable use of science in movies then I am with the astonishingly outrageous way in which history is slowly being eroded and rewritten by the Hollywood studios. How long before we see the remake of Reach For The Sky staring Bruce Willis as a sensitive Douglas Bader and see the Battle of Britain on the big screen with the New York skyline as a backdrop?

hehehehehehehe Plbmak..... You sure know how to stir it don't you?

**sits back to watch the fireworks**

John.

Let's wait and see what the Hollywood remake of Dambusters is like - I don't know who they've cast as Guy Gibson. We've got bets on here as to what they'll call his dog, since the original name will get loads of complaints.

I'm hoping the David (Hello, good evening and welcome) Frost is keeping a tight rein on things.

As for the US Navy capturing the Enigma machine from a U-bomb - pure fiction. Hrumph!

Aaaahhhhh! Ooooohhhhh!

Brilliant! I'd forgotten that! I always wanted to name a dog something really offensive, but the wife wont let me!

Oi! *&%$£**!

(I wonder how many people can't remember the dogs name?)

Didn't dare type it as then our filter wouldn't let me back in!!

There's a comedy show doing the rounds with the same word in - the guy using it is trying to reclaim it.

The US Navy actually did get the German codes and Enigma machine when they captured the U-505, June 4th, 1944. However, allied code breakers had already decyphered the German codes and could read them. They had to quarantine the seamen envolved, to avoid letting the Germans know that a U-boat had been captured intact. That would have caused the Germans to immediately change their codes. The rear admiral who planned the operation was nearly court-martialed, but they decided to make him a hero instead.

Of course it was a flotilla of ships and not just a few commandos that captured the U-505.

Howeto you're sounding a little brain washed, the HMS..... rescued the code book from the Uboat just before it sunk the codes were what Bletchly park were after.... they already had a Naval enigma machine.

Please don't mix fantasy with fact... and if I'm wrong - Afterall I'm only human, then I will apologise when confronted by evidence otherwise....

John.

I believe that you are thinking of events that occured earlier in the war (the capture of U-110 or maybe the U-559 in the Mediterranian).

The capture of the U-505 was by the US Navy (the U-boat is on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago).

I believe you are correct. As I understood the sequence, the parts for the German machine were smuggled out by someone in a German workcamp in Poland or Hungary where they were assemblng the machines (The Germans felt that no one would understand the significance of the machine. (I'm vague on the details, but it was well documented in the book Enigma. ) and delivered them to the Brits via. the underground. I thought the Brits broke the code and turned the info over to the US. Although, it may well be the the US had their own codebreakers working on it. I'm inclined to think the key element in their ability to break the code was having a working model of the machine.
It was to protect this secret that Winston Churchill sacrificed the citizens of Coventry England rather than divulge the fact that they had broken the code.

I wonder what would have happened if we had today's idiots at the New York Times in the loop? I shudder to think. I'm sure they would have considered it newsworthy!!!

This is not just a modern thing. The press has compromised military and national security on numerous occasions. The latest is the reporting by the NY Times about the eavesdropping on calls between known terrorists outside the country and people inside the US.

During the early part of WWII, a naval officer testifying before a secret Congressional hearing was complaining about the inadequacies of the torpedoes and emphasizing the dangers the submarine crews were undergoing to deliver torpedoes that failed to function. When questioned why there were so few US submarines being lost, he replied that the Japanese had their own problems, including that their depth charges were exploding too soon. The investigation was leaked to the press and the Washington Post and another paper (probably the NY Times) reported the information about the Japanese depth charges. This appeared to have gotten back to the Japanese as their problem was immediately corrected. The Navy estimated they lost 10 submarines and 880 men, as a result of the leak.

During the war a Chicago paper announced that the US had cracked the Japanese Code. Fortunately the Japanese did not read the Chicago paper or did not believe them.

The torpedo thing involved 3 defects. Due to the shortage of torpedoes, they were requiring captains to use the magnetic detonator as theoretically exploding the torpedo under a ship's keel was much more destructive than a side hit. The magnetic detonator was perhaps 10% reliable at best. Second the depth adjustment setting for the torpedo to run was inaccurate. Third, if a direct hit was achieved with the mechanical detonator, the nose of the torpedo collapsed in such a way as to jam the detonator pin. Meanwhile the company supplying the torpedoes was having labor problems, with the union initiating a work slow down. Because of the shortage of torpedoes, the Navy did not want to expend any testing them. All in all it was a pretty shoddy affair. When they finally did get all the problems resolved, the US submariners sank the Japanese merchant marine in about 18 months.

Ok. Sorry about this – a short history lesson!

1940 – February – British forces salvaged enigma parts and codes from U-33.

Mid 1940 - The armed German trawler Polares captured, Encryption material salvaged.

May 1941 – Royal Navy capture two German weather ships, again with cipher equipment and codes.

May 9^th 1941 - U-110 captured (Operation Primrose – a secret for thirty years) Complete Enigma machine, codes operating manual, the lot! This meant that German Navel messages were readable from June 1941 until the end of the war. (There where developments, obviously, but Bletchley Park countered these)

June 4^th 1944 – US Navy task group 22.3 Capture U-505. 3 years later! Incidentally, it was the first navel capture at sea for the US since 1815. And that was the HMS Nautilus!

If the US had captured the Enigma gear rather than the Brits, you can bet that it would have been set up on the west side of the pond rather than in Britain. The Brits did it. Looking at the dates listed above, one will note that the US was not even in the war at that time.

Regarding the U-505 incident, Adm. Daniel V. Gallery came up with the scheme of capturing a U boat when he was in charge of a group of PBY's in Iceland, which patrolled for U boats in the North Atlantic.

Admiral Dan, after he retired, wrote several fictional novels, which were utterly hilarious, about the navy. He also wrote one or two non-fiction books. All of his works are definitely worth reading. I hated to see his passing.

Bill

Well, although this thread is almost 2 years old, I finally saw the movie "Deja Vu," and found the entertainment factor fairly high, as long as I didn't pay too close attention to scientific detail.

I just don't think that time travel is possible. (yet)

_______________________________________________________

Those gray people in the UFOs are us traveling back in time to see ourselves in the past, not aliens from another world.