Physics in Film

Iron Man is an iconic Marvel character with arguably the most interesting backstory of the main cast of Avengers, but that does not change the fact that Tony Stark is just a regular human with no super strength or durability. Since Tony Stark is just a normal human, there is a problem with the way he pilots his suit, especially the way he does not take his time to decelerate, stop, or change directions. In the scene above, it is obvious that Tony does not even attempt to slow down in any way except when hitting the ground, which is a major problem. The suit that Tony wears does not affect the force exerted on his body, since the only way to decrease the force is to slow down over a longer period of time. The only way the suit can do that is by using the thrusters to accelerate upwards. However, since they are not used in the scene, the physics acting on Tony is not much different than if Tony were without his suit. First off, we must calculate Tony’s momentum. To calculate mo

The Martian is an interesting take on space movies since in the majority of this film it seems to be pretty accurate in the science category in terms of space travel in the future and how Mark survived on Mars, but that does not mean it was entirely true. With the help of Philip Plait's "Bad Astronomy" and his “Top Ten Examples of Bad Astronomy in Major Motion Pictures” we can assess the accuracy of the physics. Whoosh! Our Hero's spaceship comes roaring out ... This one is very common in movies, but not necessarily unknown since a silent scene in a movie wouldn't appeal to most people. Nevertheless this was in the movie. An example would be the "Iron Man" scene which make a good bit of noise in the near vacuum of space. ...of a dense asteroid field ... This movie did not show any asteroid fields, but the scenes of the ship in between planets were quite empty, so I guess that counts. ...banks hard to the left... Banking is when a vehicle c

The atomic bomb was the culmination of many great minds and a scientific breakthrough to change the world and cement the United States as the military power that it is today, but was it morally right to develop the atomic bomb in the first place. In my opinion, no it is not morally right to develop such a powerful device. The most prominent argument in support of the development of the bomb is "we need to develop it before the enemy does." The flaw in that logic is that if one nation were to produce and use such a device, not long after development there are bound to be some other nations that get the idea to start producing some as well, and there is no way for that nation to keep the details of how the device was produced a secret for long. If America had not produced the atomic bomb, there is a chance (albeit small) that the world would have never produced such a horrible device in the first place. Science is supposed to be about discovery, education, and making life