p1t1o

Shower thoughts

Recommended Posts

Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology?

I'm talking about a genre of movies that would usually disregard both or one of these things in order to make room for a narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delay said:

Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology?

I'm talking about a genre of movies that would usually disregard both or one of these things in order to make room for a narrative.

2001: A Space Odyssey comes very close. There's only like one gimmick, that being the monoliths.

There's even a live interview with the astronauts on the way to Jupiter, in which the news reporter talks about "Ok now we have to wait an hour for the astronauts to respond because of the speed-of-light delay."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delay said:

Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology?

I'm talking about a genre of movies that would usually disregard both or one of these things in order to make room for a narrative.

The Martian came somewhat close. Only real issue is the strength of the dust storms. Of course there were production issues and inconsistencies between scenes, but that isn’t anything good editing can’t fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Delay said:

Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology?

Most of the narrative fans will get bothered with the fizzix-schmizzix details.
Most of the science fans will be unhappy without them.

So, it would be a movie about two physicist professors first arguing about the scientific blah-blah (to make happy the science fans), then beating each other and throwing one of them into window (hi, Ggravity!) (to make happy the narrative fans bothered with the first half).

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar designs, completely different solutions.

Had Buran the same problems too (I.e., debris hitting the heat shield)? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 12:17 AM, Delay said:

Would it be possible for a movie to have an exciting narrative while still obeying all laws of physics and with current technology?

Yes - any standard fiction film, to be honest.

Your daily soap opera still obeys most of physics as they don't make anything up on that end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Had Buran the same problems too (I.e., debris hitting the heat shield)? 

The rocket was covered with 1..1.7 mm thick ice.

http://buran.ru/htm/flight.htm

If ice was 2 mm thick the launch should be aborted.

https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2018/11/14_a_12059095.shtml

So, probably yes.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking the other day about prime numbers the other day, and had a thought. You know that one proof where you take every prime below some value, multiply them, add one, and then the new number is prime? Well what is you subtracted one instead? I've been thinking about it for a bit, and I think the number would also be prime. But if this is true, then I just discovered proof of infinite twin primes, which I find unlikely. Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea?

Provide a counterexample.

 

For example:

Let your "some value" be 8.  
2 * 3 * 5 * 7 = 210.
210+1 = 211 (prime)
210-1 = 209 (not prime (11*19))

 

(I've never heard of this proof, by the way.  I'm just taking your word for it that it exists.)

Edited by razark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

I was thinking the other day about prime numbers the other day, and had a thought. You know that one proof where you take every prime below some value, multiply them, add one, and then the new number is prime? Well what is you subtracted one instead? I've been thinking about it for a bit, and I think the number would also be prime. But if this is true, then I just discovered proof of infinite twin primes, which I find unlikely. Does anyone know a way to disprove this idea?

That proof is only valid because you assume there are finite primes, and take X+1 where X is the product of all of them. So, (X+1) has to be a prime, not just because it isn't a multiple of the primes you multiplied, but also because there aren't any other primes you could divide it by. If (X-1) is a lesser prime than (X+1), it renders the demonstration of the existence of (X+1) as a prime incorrect. (Of course, the original demonstration isn't that X+1 is a prime, it's that's an absurd you could have finite many primes, so the question of whether (X+1) actually is or isn't a prime isn't really a question at all...)

Edited by monstah
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, razark said:

(I've never heard of this proof, by the way.  I'm just taking your word for it that it exists.)

 

43 minutes ago, monstah said:

That proof is only valid because you assume there are finite primes, and take X+1 where X is the product of all of them. So, (X+1) has to be a prime, not just because it isn't a multiple of the primes you multiplied, but also because there aren't any other primes you could divide it by. If (X-1) is a lesser prime than (X+1), it renders the demonstration of the existence of (X+1) as a prime incorrect. (Of course, the original demonstration isn't that X+1 is a prime, it's that's an absurd you could have finite many primes, so the question of whether (X+1) actually is or isn't a prime isn't really a question at all...)

I looked into it some more, and found out that I was misremembering and misinterpreting the infinite prime proof.

Edited by roboslacker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...do you suppose the sum of all primes converges to a finite value, even if there are infinitely many of them? Probably not...?

Edited by cubinator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cubinator said:

Hmmm...do you suppose the sum of all primes converges to a finite value, even if there are infinitely many of them? Probably not...?

If there are an infinite number of primes, and each one is larger than the last, then they shouldn't converge any faster than 1+1+1+…. Which is divergent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

If there are an infinite number of primes, and each one is larger than the last, then they shouldn't converge any faster than 1+1+1+…. Which is divergent.

The only exception would be if the negation of each prime was considered prime as well, in which case it would converge to 0. However, they aren't included in the definition of primes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

The only exception would be if the negation of each prime was considered prime as well, in which case it would converge to 0. However, they aren't included in the definition of primes.

Is -1 a prime number? Its only factors are 1 and itself. That would neatly take care of negative prime numbers, if so: they're the product of a prime and -1, and therefore composite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Is -1 a prime number? Its only factors are 1 and itself. That would neatly take care of negative prime numbers, if so: they're the product of a prime and -1, and therefore composite.

As far as I can tell, they are essentially considered the same "prime ideal" in advanced math, and so basically ignored. The standard definition of a prime is a natural number greater than 1.

https://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/negative_primes.html

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1002459/do-we-have-negative-prime-numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stand in the sunlight on Earth, and look at the shadow of your head, you are looking directly towards Earth's shadow as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cubinator said:

If you stand in the sunlight on Earth, and look at the shadow of your head, you are looking directly towards Earth's shadow as well.

Why don't we consider the shadow cast upon the earth by your head (figuratively speaking) as a "melon eclipse" since we have solar and lunar eclipses...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

Why don't we consider the shadow cast upon the earth by your head (figuratively speaking) as a "melon eclipse" since we have solar and lunar eclipses...

 

You could extend it to any object, and then call it an "atmospheric eclipse" or "incomplete eclipse" because the shadow extends only partway through the atmosphere unlike a solar eclipse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cubinator said:

You could extend it to any object, and then call it an "atmospheric eclipse" or "incomplete eclipse" because the shadow extends only partway through the atmosphere unlike a solar eclipse. 

Yeah, probably so. But there is something funny about the term, "melon eclipse" :D Hey, @cubinator, would you move over to the left? You're causing a melon eclipse over here...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Yeah, probably so. But there is something funny about the term, "melon eclipse" :D Hey, @cubinator, would you move over to the left? You're causing a melon eclipse over here...

Or the opposite, like that moment when you're sitting facing the general direction of the Sun, and someone is standing nearby talking to you, and you're looking up at them with the Sun near their head, and it's like "Dude, take a step to the left, I need a full melon eclipse here!"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Or the opposite, like that moment when you're sitting facing the general direction of the Sun, and someone is standing nearby talking to you, and you're looking up at them with the Sun near their head, and it's like "Dude, take a step to the left, I need a full melon eclipse here!"

See... it could be a very useful term... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Dyson sphere.

Spoiler

Everestor-Outdoor-Pop-up-Beach-Tent-Blue

Or a total ecliptor, depends on which side you turn.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now