Talk:The Core

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article	This article is a Article.

Contents 1 Goof? 2 lack 3 Gravity? 4 Nonsense? 5 Scientific inaccuracy? 6 "The nuclear explosions depicted in the movie were roughly spherical. A spherical explosion would produce no torque on the Earth's core, and thus would be unable to start it rotating." 7 Question 8 Boiling water note 9 Ship issues 10 Lern 2 Monty Python reference 11 DESTINI or Destiny? 12 Rotten to the Core

[edit] Goof?

The trout smashing into the window was put in intentionally. I think this should be corrected on the main article. And, for those interested, he's a picture: Image:The-Core-Fish.png --BleachInjected 01:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lack

There should probably be a film poster here, in case anyone besides me is interested. Scorpionman 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity?

Deleted the post about gravity being weaker near the center of the core. That is opposite what happens, gravity is strongest there.

• That is incorrect. Assuming roughly linear density, it is fairly easy to show that gravitational acceleration is proportional to r. Additionally, there are many other scientific problems, misquotes, and inaccuracies in the plot. For instance, if the core ceased to rotate, it would cause massive earthquakes and significant changes in the length of Earth's day. Also, in one scene someone states "when waves enter a denser medium, the wavelength decreases and the frequency increases. The frequency in fact stays the same. Check refraction. The only circumstance under which the frequency may change is encountered in astronomical red-shifting. This shows what we always knew about the movie, that is, too much science for the layman, and the science too inaccurate for anyone who knows about it! Kenneth Charles 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense?

Is this quote correct?

"You can use our T1 line to look up Sailor Moon crap, you're up to this!"

If so, its context hasn't been fully explained, since it seems to make no sense whatsoever. If it doesn't make sense in the movie either, that should probably be explained as well.

[edit] Scientific inaccuracy?

Just added:

The unobtainium hull is able to convert heat directly into usable energy, violating the second law of thermodynamics.

But is this one true? I can convert heat into steam and turn a turbine to make electricty (a usable energy). So do power plants violate 2nd law of thermo? Cburnett 06:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That is indirect convertion, as you are using the turbine and magnetic forces to create the energy. You're not directly converting it from the heatsource. The unobtainium converts it within itself, a process I think is highly improbable. Here7ic 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, improbable but as stated it says it's impossible. Two different meanings. I still don't see how it violates the 2nd law. Cburnett 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Improbable is merely being used for rhetorical effect, I would say, as it would be impossible for any material to convert heat directly to electricity with any semblance of efficiency.

The second law of thermodynamics assumes creation of energy through heat flow between two heat reservoirs of different temperatures. This would lead to the heating up of the craft, and as such would lead to major problems. However, there are methods of electricity generation which bypass heat engines, such piezoelectricity, or photovoltaics. In the film it is suggested that the power arrises from pressure rather than heat, suggesting perhaps a piezoelectric effect. It seems that two cables are bolted to the hull generating limited power, suggesting that the pressure somehow sets up a potential difference across the hull. We can assume that Unobtanium is perhaps a crystaline material that could perhaps generate a potential across it's surface from pressure. However, sustained power generation would depend on fluctuating pressure, which may be generated by something like say... turbulence against the hull, however this would also violate the second law of thermodynamics (creating a perpetual motion machine...).Kenneth Charles 10:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the value in the extent of this section. The film is rife with absurd science; but then so is Tolkien. Nearly every "scientific" point can be exposed as pure Hollywood foolishness. I think it's enough to so state without going into exhaustive detail; this is fantasy, not science fiction.

Fantasy uses magic/supernatural means to explain parts of the story. Science fiction uses science instead. Even if absurd, it's rooted in something resembling science, not magic. Cburnett 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole section lacks citations. Who made this list?

Another example of 'who made this list?' is the terranauts' ship. The supposed inconsistency/inaccuracy in the film is the ship is repeatedly shown diving nose downward towards the Earth's core, yet the terranauts are shown walking up right. This is explained earlier in the film with each section of Virgil being leveled out with devices akin to gyrostabilizers, so I don't see this as an inaccuracy. Secos5 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've seen this movie, and that list is clearly way too short. It must be only a fraction of a percent of the scientific inaccuracies in the movie. I'll look for a secondary source - trying to watch the core makes my eyes bleed, and my soul die. WilyD 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The nuclear explosions depicted in the movie were roughly spherical. A spherical explosion would produce no torque on the Earth's core, and thus would be unable to start it rotating."

To my knowledge, the idea of 5 detonations could induce rotation with good enough timing. Even one by itself could induce rotation (assuming it was big enough), as is seen in blood circulation in embryos before the formation of valves. Ie, initially symmetrical systems can give rise to chirality or assymetry.Kenneth Charles 09:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

When the team goes through the Earth, and they enter that space of "nothing", I believe there is a theory about "nothingness" in space or such, do we have an article on it or is there a site I can look at because I find it to be very interesting.

You mean a vacuum? 62.251.111.252 23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that there is a massive mountain range in the mantle that is comparable to the size of the continents on the surface of the Earth.

[edit] Boiling water note

I removed this section:

"A beam of microwaves is shown wreaking havoc in San Francisco. When it hits the water, the water boils almost instantaneously. While water does capture microwave energy relatively efficiently, it does not instantly boil. It must first be heated to its boiling point and then receive additional energy to surpass the heat of vaporization. Sunlight cannot do this, since the volume of water is too great. The entire bay would have to be heated to the boiling point before any of the water could boil."

This is not true. If water (or any other material) is heated very fast in one place, the heat exchange does not take a place (or it does not transfer significant amount of heat so fast), so one part of the body can reach boiling point and even evaporate, while other parts would remain (at least for some initial time) cooler. You can imagine this like when forger is forging an iron rod, one end is so hot, it is red, and the other end is cooler. Or when you put a spoon into cup of hot tea, it takes some time to heat the end not in tea, while at same time, the "tea end" of the spoon would be hot. Heating the water to boil as depicted in the movie has to be extremely fast, but generaly the quoted paragraph is not true.

[edit] Ship issues

As I remember it, the only part of the ship that collapsed under pressure was the first part to be ejected (The weapons control). In that case, the hull had been breached (which should have been a bit more devastating than a slow crush) but this is different from the other ejections where a section was ejected in tact. I can't believe I'm defending this :)

Also, citation needed on "vilated second law" etc, converting energy is ok, you just can't create it. So i'm deleting that.

[edit] Lern 2 Monty Python reference

It's African Swallow. Jeez. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.173.240.130 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] DESTINI or Destiny?

Although the acronym explanation suggests the project is called DESTINI, all on-screen references in the film use the spelling Project Destiny (numerous messages on computer screens, the headlines at the end, and at least one time/location caption, in addition to the signs refered to in the trivia section of the article). Perhaps we should either just adopt this spelling in the article, or point it out as an error? 81.76.116.141 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten to the Core

Wow! The movie's just been shown on British terrestrial TV for the first time. I never thought I'd ever see a disaster movie that makes Armageddon look like Citizen Kane. What a turkey!

Gardener of Geda 07:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)