<Dang> Hollywood.

[Navalius]

I assume that this has been asked a bunch of times before, and I'm also pretty sure that this is also the wrong place to ask it.

But I'm just wondering about the Doomsday/End of the World theory that the movie 2012 puts forward.

Grain of truth or Hollywood at it again for money?

Would love the answers.

Cheers!

-Will

[Swift]

Navalius,

Please watch the language. If you wouldn't say it to your grandmother or a 4 year old, please don't say it here.

As far as your question.... not a grain of truth (and well covered in many threads around BAUT). In this case, Hollywood didn't invent the nonsense, they are just exploiting nonsense created by others so as to make money.

[Rhaedas]

Since the basis of 2012 was a geological cause, I would put it this way. The movie 'The Core' probably has good competition for bad geological science.

Bad writing, a need for using special effects, and capitalization of an upcoming non-event to make money.

[Navalius]

Navalius,

Please watch the language. If you wouldn't say it to your grandmother or a 4 year old, please don't say it here.

Yikes!

I wasn't aware that what I said counted as bad language!
Very very sorry! Its not counted as bad language around where I live at all (Australia). In fact it more or less equals 'Dang' here :). Grandparents and 4 year olds are fine with it.

And as for the question. I believe its got some validity for being asked here. I'll quote the plot summary from Wikipedia, "In 2009, Adrian Helmsley, an American geologist visits Doctor Satnam Tsurutani in India and learns that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to increase rapidly." So basically the question was more about are solar flares actually able to raise the temperature of the Earth's core. Are they able to raise them enough to cause what happened in the Film to occur? And by the way, I haven't actually seen the film. I've just been going by what I've read from Wikipedia.

[Rhaedas]

The central premise is that neutrinos from a solar flare mutate into microwaves or something, and cause the core to heat up. They say this right after they state the scientifically correct fact that neutrinos don't react very much at all with matter.

[forrest noble]

Navalius,


....I'm just wondering about the Doomsday/End of the World theory that the movie 2012 puts forward. (Is there a) Grain of truth or Hollywood at it again for money?

words within parenthesis added

Bottom line is there was no science in it, only a semblance of science trying to justify the pseudo-geological and solar causes for the catastrophy. The sun could always do something unpredictable causing a catastrophe on Earth but it was just jibberish concerning how it scientifically played out in the movie. Producers were just playing on the 2012 "myth" concerning the Mayan calender end-of-the-world scenario. "Hollywood at it again" I think was a good description. That being said, I did enjoy the movie and its one-step-ahead-of-catastrophe special effects.

[Ken G]

I'll quote the plot summary from Wikipedia, "In 2009, Adrian Helmsley, an American geologist visits Doctor Satnam Tsurutani in India and learns that neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth's core to increase rapidly." So basically the question was more about are solar flares actually able to raise the temperature of the Earth's core.And the answer is: no, solar flares cannot raise the temperature of the core. As others have said, the science is so far from anything that would be possible, I would say they didn't even try to. Solar flares release most of their energy into other channels than neutrinos, and could pose a deadly threat to life on the surface of a planet, if the planet were not shielded by an atmosphere and a magnetic canopy (as the Earth is). The core would be 100% ambivalent to that kind of energy release, even if any of it could reach the core. It's completely absurd that the threat to life on Earth would be something that could bypass the thin atmosphere, bypass the fragile surface life, bypass the huge rocky mantle, and yet somehow deposit so much energy in the core that it all returns with a vengeance to that thin atmosphere and fragile life.

[Spoons]

Yikes!

I wasn't aware that what I said counted as bad language!
Very very sorry! Its not counted as bad language around where I live at all (Australia). In fact it more or less equals 'Dang' here :). Grandparents and 4 year olds are fine with it.
I don't want to descend into this line of discussion, but I understand what you're saying - the equivalent might be, "If you wouldn't say it in church or on a first date with a princess" I guess. The rest of the world aren't generally so crude as we. ETA: If you need further clarification PM a mod - they'll prefer this discussion doesn't continue in this thread.

But more importantly, has your question been suitably answered? If not, I think there are other threads discussin specifically that movie, which I'll dig up the links to if you're interested in more.

(I havent seen the movie in question, and have no intention of doing so unless I'm too hungover to change the channel one day, so I can only go on what others are saying)

[WayneFrancis]

The central premise is that neutrinos from a solar flare mutate into microwaves or something, and cause the core to heat up. They say this right after they state the scientifically correct fact that neutrinos don't react very much at all with matter.

Yea that movie was bad. Neutrinos can go through a light year of lead without interacting but some how, all of a sudden, they can heat up the core but not react with any one on the surface.

[Navalius]

Thanks! The question has been answered :)

Now I just have to fine some nice Geography forum for this other one I've got :)

[mugaliens]

The central premise is that neutrinos from a solar flare mutate into microwaves or something, and cause the core to heat up. They say this right after they state the scientifically correct fact that neutrinos don't react very much at all with matter.

Let's reexamine this. Not saying it's right (I do not believe it is). However, let's assume for a moment neutrinos... Ok, scrap that, as we know they can't do it. Let's fictate a particle called tinselos (after tinseltown) had a slight thermal interaction with matter, but mostly passed through.

Let's say a nearby stellar event generated a slew of them and they were able to heat up all matter by 1 deg over 1 week's time. Would we notice it? No way, as our body temps fluctuate too fast, and a 1 week rise of 1 deg would be lost well below the noise floor of our bodies' normal thermal variance.

But the Earth's mean temperature changes far more slowly, and we definately would notice it. What then? How would a uniform increase of just one degree affect the interior of our planet? I suspect a doubling of volcanic activity and earthquakes might be the least of our worries.

[Ken G]

I can grant you that if there were a process to suddenly begin releasing vastly more energy than any known process in the Sun, and if there were some way to convey it to Earth that passed easily through the magnetic fields, the atmosphere, and the mantle, then you could heat up the core at pretty much any rate you care to name. You could also say a hitherto unknown fusion process turned on inside the Earth and did the same thing. It's not hard to make stuff up, it's hard to have any basis in reality.