Treasure Planet

[nebularain]

Well, I can't say this is good/bad astronomy for sure (other than the feasibility of the ship actually surviving!) but the ship in the movie is near a star that goes supernova and turns into a black hole (which of course they almost get sucked into, but fortunately are able to escape by riding the final explosion out and away from it - umm, would there be one?). Well, whether accurate or not, it did look cool!

The galaxies and nebulas displayed on the virtual map looked outstandingly beautiful.

Treasure Planet itself had two rings that criss-crossed each other. Ugh!

The ship has artificial gravity, but it is not explained how they have any "atmosphere" or radiation shielding (if you saw the trailers, you would be aware that their space ships look and manuever just like the old galley ships, except they have solar sails instead of wind sails). They also didn't explain the ability to travel vast distances through outerspace (is that called "interstellar travel?"). Hmmmm.

Otherwise, a very clever twist to an old story. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

P.S. "I'm an astronomer, not a doctor!"
(I think I'm the only one in the theater who moaned.) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]


Edit: That's artificial gravity, not anti-gravity, Neb!
_________________
"Once again, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, . . . but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!" - The Tick vs. Dinosaur Neil

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-11-28 22:50 ]</font>

[Smaug]

I know what you mean but, give 'em a break. Just a Disney Movie. I don't think many people get their astronomical information from Disney [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]. I hope to go see it tomorrow, it looks very stunning.

[irony]

I figure that any and all complaint about 'bad astronomy' pertaining to Treasure Planet is sort of moot... this is a fantasy movie, not a science fiction one.

As for the Doc and Amelia... I give 'em three months. Then he bows to instinct and starts chasing her up trees.

[nebularain]

I don't believe I have to defend myself for posting this one. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[irony]

Oh, no, that's not what I meant! I was just stating my opinion on it was all.

Gomenasai!

[Kaptain K]

Gomenasai!

Gesundheit!!

[darkhunter]

While we're on the subject of Bad Astronomy in animated movies-- "Ice Age" has a flying saucer frozen in the ice during the tunnel scene (along with a dinosaur and some made-up critters....) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[informant]

I thought that was one of the coolest scenes in Ice Age! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-11-28 21:27, nebularain wrote:
Well, I can't say this is good/bad astronomy for sure (other than the feasibility of the ship actually surviving!) but the ship in the movie is near a star that goes supernova and turns into a black hole (which of course they almost get sucked into, but fortunately are able to escape by riding the final explosion out and away from it - umm, would there be one?). Well, whether accurate or not, it did look cool!

My beef about that would be that the resulting black hole would not have any more mass than the star that went supernova--so its gravitational attraction would not be any more than before it went supernova. Correct?

[SeanF]

On 2002-12-03 11:17, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-11-28 21:27, nebularain wrote:
Well, I can't say this is good/bad astronomy for sure (other than the feasibility of the ship actually surviving!) but the ship in the movie is near a star that goes supernova and turns into a black hole (which of course they almost get sucked into, but fortunately are able to escape by riding the final explosion out and away from it - umm, would there be one?). Well, whether accurate or not, it did look cool!

My beef about that would be that the resulting black hole would not have any more mass than the star that went supernova--so its gravitational attraction would not be any more than before it went supernova. Correct?

I was thinking the same thing. If the mass of the body didn't change (which it shouldn't), and the ship's distance from the center of the body didn't change (which it shouldn't), then the gravitational pull wouldn't change.

I think that's the one thing about black holes that "laymen" most often misunderstand. The gravity is only 'stronger' because you can get closer to the center without breaking the surface - you still have to get closer to the center to experience any stronger gravity!

[AstroAnimeFreak]

Hey, i'm new to this, but soo far this is pretty cool. I've wanted to see the movie ever since the trailers first came out, the way u describe it, the movie should be a blast. as for the explinations on the artificial gravity and the atmosphere, i cant explain those, but as i think i've read earlier, its just a disney movie. its really cool what some of those people who think up these things can come up with. as for Ice age, it was good, the tunnel scene gave my mom a good laugh along with the "slide" scene. well thats enough from me, i'm gonna see what else i've been missing.

[Wiley]

On 2002-12-03 12:20, SeanF wrote:

On 2002-12-03 11:17, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-11-28 21:27, nebularain wrote:
Well, I can't say this is good/bad astronomy for sure (other than the feasibility of the ship actually surviving!) but the ship in the movie is near a star that goes supernova and turns into a black hole (which of course they almost get sucked into, but fortunately are able to escape by riding the final explosion out and away from it - umm, would there be one?). Well, whether accurate or not, it did look cool!

My beef about that would be that the resulting black hole would not have any more mass than the star that went supernova--so its gravitational attraction would not be any more than before it went supernova. Correct?

I was thinking the same thing. If the mass of the body didn't change (which it shouldn't), and the ship's distance from the center of the body didn't change (which it shouldn't), then the gravitational pull wouldn't change.

I think that's the one thing about black holes that "laymen" most often misunderstand. The gravity is only 'stronger' because you can get closer to the center without breaking the surface - you still have to get closer to the center to experience any stronger gravity!

If I recall correctly most of a star's mass is blown away with the supernova. The resulting black hole has mass significantly smaller than the original star. For instance, a star of 4M_S would reduce to a black hole of a 1.5M_S.

Thus the gravity should be less after the supernova.

[Kaptain K]

If I recall correctly most of a star's mass is blown away with the supernova. The resulting black hole has mass significantly smaller than the original star. For instance, a star of 4MS would reduce to a black hole of a 1.5MS.

Correct in essence. A remnant of less than 1.7 solar masses will be a white dwarf. Between 1.7 and 3.4 solar masses, it is a neutron star. The minimum mass for a black hole is 3.4 solar masses. The progenitor star of a black hole will be more than 8 solar masses.

Thus the gravity should be less after the supernova.

True!

[Wiley]

On 2002-12-05 14:39, Kaptain K wrote:
Correct in essence. A remnant of less than 1.7 solar masses will be a white dwarf. Between 1.7 and 3.4 solar masses, it is a neutron star. The minimum mass for a black hole is 3.4 solar masses. The progenitor star of a black hole will be more than 8 solar masses.

Thanks for the correction. I double checked your figures at NASA's Observatorium. Please don't be offended, but I don't trust anybody with a post count less than a thousand. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[David Hall]

On 2002-12-06 19:26, Wiley wrote:

Please don't be offended, but I don't trust anybody with a post count less than a thousand. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

So that means you'll trust me but not the BA? Oh boy. I'm looking forward to the chance to "inform" you some. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

And what about you? Will you only start trusting yourself when you reach a thousand posts?