Talk:The Core

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
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. Feel free to add your name to the participants 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.

Contents

[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 fucking 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)
  • Are you sure? on the surface of the Earth, the full mass of the planet is "below" you, and since the planet is a sphere, the net force is downwards (the mass which is not part of the column perfectly below you pulls you to that side, but there is an equal mass on the other side, counter-acting that force). In the very center, the full mass of the planet is distributed (almost) equally around you, and so pulls equally in all directions; cancalling itself out. At the very center of the Earth, gravity should be essentially zero. Toby Douglass 20:32, 7 May 2007 (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.

Sailor_Moon was a popular 90's anime.People who use computers heavily are more likely to download anime/movies,along with Warez (incl. hackers).T1 Line is a dedicated connection Digital_Signal_1 .

MidNiteNeko 14:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Your probably a dumb ass and shouldn't that just because you too stupid to get it no one else is. MidNiteNeko 06:21, 7 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[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)
To generate usable energy from the pressure across the hull, the craft would have to steadily shrink (just like it would have to get hotter if it were using temperature as a heat source). All extraction of usable energy requires flow between reservoirs. 88.108.134.154 18:17, 26 April 2007 (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)


From the article: "Furthermore, Keyes's approach of just leaning the plutonium reactor core against the bomb would have done nothing for yield. For fissile material to affect yield, it must be part of the weapon's physics package, not placed nearby." This seems wrong. The neutron flux coming off the fusion stage causes fission in a natural Uranium "tamper"; it's far from out of the question that it could cause a subcritical mass of plutonium to fission. Also, Plutonium-burning reactors are far from unheard of; many Soviet subs used them. TariqAlSuave (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2007 (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)

[edit] Lightning

The bit in the article about lightning not being powerful enough to destroy stone buildings is pure bogus. The house i recently moved into was hit by a lightning strike at the outdoor garage. The owners came out to find the first 10 ft x 15 ftx 4 in. thick slab to be completely blown to dust. Albeit this building was not grounded (previous owner was not a man to follow code) so maybe these properly built buildings would have withstood the blast.

Consider that the density of a wooden house would be substantially less than a stone bedrock. 24.30.46.33 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the glasses could have broken from a combination of both pressure and heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.125.241 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 404 error

Regarding the following miscellaneous inconsistency from the main article:

"When 'Rat' is hacking in to the Destiny computers, he recieves a 404 Access Denied message. the 404 error means 'Page Not Found'. it should have been a 301 message."

I also doubt it should be a '301 message'. According to the Wikipedia List of HTTP status codes, 301 means 'Moved Permanently'. I think it should be either '401 Unauthorized' or '403 Forbidden'.

Korenchkin 09:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research in the Scientific Inaccuracies section

I've tagged the Scientific Inaccuracies section for lack of references and the possibility of original research. This section should only include inaccuracies whose identities as such are verifiable by reliable sources that actually discuss the movie. It is indeed tempting to point out every instance in such movies where the plot disagrees with accepted science, but to infer that "Movie says X, but science says not-X, therefore, movie is wrong" is original synthesis. Even if you avoid directly making the inference, the mere juxtaposition of scientific beliefs with events in the movie contitutes original research by mere implication (and if not, they're wholly irrelevant). I'm going to look for sources when I have time, and I suggest that anyone who wishes for the section to stay do the same, for at some point I'm going to delete what can't be sourced. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, and to disagree! I challenged the deletion of the "Scientific Innaccuracies" section previously, as I feel it has value. Whilst I agree that under normal circumstances a discussion of a movie simply to discount all of the "science" therein could be deemed destructive (e.g. "Lightsabers in Star Wars are technically impossible, therefore...."), I feel that The Core deserves a little extra merit simply because of the nature of the science contained within it. In no other film have I seen a film where the entire premise relies upon scientific inaccuracies and invented science. Almost every scientific device used in the film is fatally flawed in some fashion, and I feel these flaws deserve to be highlighted. These both criticise and also elevate the film, highlighting how bad the science is, but at the same time celebrating the sheer brazen usage of said "bad science", to create entertaining popcorn fun with a casual disregard for any genuine accuracy. I got as much pleasure from reading all the scientific flaws in this article as I did from watching the movie, it helped me to fully reinforce my "suspended disbelief" by making it absolutely clear this wasn't science used for authenticity, or with subtlety, but instead used and abused blatantly and deliberately and with no apologies made. Sometimes it's nice to see just how many liberties the filmmakers took, and how much fun they had sidestepping all of the technical hurdles by simply making stuff up. This article goes a long way to helping The Core become more than a cheesy Sci-Fi movie, this article makes it feel more like some crazy spoof of every Sci-Fi movie, showing that you really can do anything you like, and call it whatever you want, and to hell with credibility! Hope this helps keep the SI section alive! --Damage (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm glad someone else is also bothered by this awful section. It has no business being here; not only is it a bizarre collection of often-false nitpickery, it also spectacularly fails any test of relevance one might care to devise, completely misses the point of a movie that bunks its science at a very high level (viz. "unobtanium"), and frankly makes the Wiki look like it is written by clueless and humorless people with pocket protectors. It's as out of place here as a detailed discussion of aeronautics and banking flight maneuvers would be in a Star Trek summary - this stuff simply has absolutely nothing to do with the film.

    Damage, I take your point about guilty pleasures, but that's really here nor there for this article, which is a Wikipedia entry on the all-star comedy adventure major motion picture The Core. As such, it should concern itself with the movie, not with an off-topic list of cruft that is pretty much completely either Original Research, whole-cloth speculation, or wrong.

    Much as I sympathize with your view that "This article goes a long way to helping The Core become more than a cheesy Sci-Fi movie," that is not in the scope or purpose of the Wiki. I recommend this be moved to userspace or relocated to a web page somewhere, it really can't stay here. I'll move it to this Talk page for archival purposes in a couple of days, barring a consensus against. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for sources directly related to the movie, and all that turned up were blogs, forums, and close equivalents; nothing I found approached a reliable source. There may be something to be found in professional reviews, but Amazon didn't list any besides its own, which made no mention of inaccuracies. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I would vote in favor of retaining the "Scientific inaccuracies" section because the errors in this move were exceptionally glaring. Just my humble opinion :-| ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We could always open a request for comment to get more opinions. The thing is that, while some of this might be verifiable, it is pretty obvious original research. The question then is whether it is sufficiently important to be worth ignoring that rule, which I don't see a strong argument for; IAR exists to prevent policies from damaging the encyclopedia, not to prevent policies from achieving their purpose for existing. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys are lame, this page kicks ass.

24.30.46.33 (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Core 2000

Ok, when I saw both movies at the video club, I rented them a couple years ago: it's the same plot, same idea to "jump start" the earth's core, and if I remember correctly, they both have a scene within a geode of crystals. If it wasn't for the years I'd give more details, so anyone else have seen both films? At least recently enough to comment on the similarities? Mandragorae (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)