Printable View
so last night i rented this movie and it just pissed me off. I mean if everytime that he goes back to fix something and something messes up then what was the explanation for it finally working out?
Dont get me wrong the movie was ok, it had me wondering what the hell was going on at the edge of my seat but i dont know it made me wantto scream.! :P
Because he realized that he was only going back to fix something that went wrong between him and the girl. Everytime it would mess up when he would try to either save her or salvage the relationship. He realized that the two of them would never be able to be together and work out hence the final solution.
you should've watched the directors cut. it has a different ending that is way better than the original. raverboy
ill have to watch it tonite again
I still havent seen the theatrical version -i have only seen the directors cut and it made me cry hardcore. very nice movie. but bleh.
You know what ? I think the word of the day is "BLEH" i seem to have said it in every post i've done today. wickedly wierd.
yeah, i loved the movie so much that i decided to watch it over again, however i watched the regular ending. damn i was so disappointed because it was no where near the directors cut....lose money. raverboy
i watched it twice in one day :P
I haven't watched the movie before. But actually the Butterfly Effect is a physical theory. Something about a small change in the world affecting another part of the world in a very big way. Physicists theorise that a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world can cause a hurricane in another part of the world after some time. Something like this time travel that apparently plays a huge part in the movie: changing something back in time can cause big changes in the present.
I didn't see the director's cut. I'll have to check that out.
It's getting to where you have to invest twice as much on a movie now because you have to see it while it's at the theatre with the big screen and loud speakers..then you have to see the DVD with all them extras..
Freddie
well another movie that is based on theory was "the day after tomorrow". it's another movie where it could possibly happen, yet it hasn't.
raverboy
The day after tomorrow no doubt had beautiful special effects, but just so you know I think some things were grossly exaggerated (though it was all for the sake of the movie looking better). I only watched its trailer and saw the Statue of Liberty getting nearly submerged by a storm surge. I was like wtf?!? The statue is probably about 90 metres tall and the immense surge required to nearly submerge it can probably only be caused by some humongous meteorite landing on Earth or something about as catastrophic.
Another point to note is that the North Pole melting would not affect the sea level much, if at all cos it's just made out of huge icebergs. (actually Santa and his elves would drown while his reindeers would fly away, but that's besides the point). Antarctica melting on the other hand would result in a rise in the sea level cos Antarctica is actually ice on continent, so the melted ice would just wash off the continent underneath and raise sea levels worldwide, though all the solar energy available to Earth aimed at Antarctica would probably take at least a year to melt all the ice on that continent, so such a dramatic rise in sea level as in the movie is virtually impossible. (Ah... now we know why the North Pole is not a continent but Antarctica is).
Oh crap... I probably successfully made myself sound like a nerd. Lol...
If you liked Butterfly Effect, watch "Donnie Darko". It's freakin' AWESOME!!!!!
Quite true. Actually, if the north pole were to melt, the water level would probably LOWER. If it's made up of icebergs, then that means it's all ice. Figure into the fact that the only part of an iceberg you see is probably about 10% (the rest is under water), then that means that there's a whole HELL of a lot of ice. And then take into account that ice, takes up more room than water. When water turns to ice, it expands. When it melts, the volume shrinks. So the water level would probably significantly LOWER.Quote:
Another point to note is that the North Pole melting would not affect the sea level much, if at all cos it's just made out of huge icebergs. (actually Santa and his elves would drown while his reindeers would fly away, but that's besides the point). Antarctica melting on the other hand would result in a rise in the sea level cos Antarctica is actually ice on continent, so the melted ice would just wash off the continent underneath and raise sea levels worldwide, though all the solar energy available to Earth aimed at Antarctica would probably take at least a year to melt all the ice on that continent, so such a dramatic rise in sea level as in the movie is virtually impossible. (Ah... now we know why the North Pole is not a continent but Antarctica is).
If you don't believe me, take a cup with ice, and put water in it. Mark the level on the cup. Then wait for the ice to melt (cover the cup if you want to minimize evaporation), and see where the water comes up to.
Or you can even prove it in REVERSE. Fill a bottle completely with water (no room). Cap it off, and put it in the freezer. When you check the next day to see if it's frozen, you'll see that the bottle has cracked or exploded because it was too small to fit the ICE (even though it was big enough to fit the water).
And ANOTHER interesting fact, water is the ONLY substance that is lighter in it's solid form than in it's liquid form. Solid gold is heavier than liquid, solid lead is heaver than liquid, solid silver is heavier than liquid, etc.
Signed,
Rod "Bill Nye" Steele
Actually the water level would stay the same. According to Archimedes' principle of floatation (I think it's his principle), 90m kg of displaced water would result in an upthrust that would hold up 90m kg of ice. Thus the ice berg is actually 90m kg heavy so it would generate 90m kg of water when melted. So the space taken up by the ice at first would just be filled up exactly by the water resulting from the melted iceberg. However, due to impurities, there might be a slight increase/drop as opposed to the expected constant sea level.
my brain hurts :(
I see where you are going with that - but I dont think you explained it in "dumb" enough words for most. So I will give it a try.Quote:
Originally Posted by GBRaul
11% of ice is visible above water level. The rest is submerged under the water. Water will expand when frozen, and contract when melted. This is why a can of soda or something will explode in a freezer. But here is the part where people dont think - when you put a coke in the freezer the whole thing is a liquid and the whole thing will turn to a solid - this is not what happens in nature with icebergs. There are BOTH liquid and solid TOGETHER. Much like the glass of water on the counter with an icecube in it. The icecube is submerged underwater, except for 11% of it. The water that the icecube was made out of has expanded, so it is taking up more room than normal. But here is the kicker. The "extra" part of the icecube that has come to be because of the expansion is NOT going to fit in the water because of its density. Therefore it will "float" on top of the water. The rest is still "mixed" in the water (submerged). Therefore the water level would stay consistent. The icesube will melt. It will contract. But the excess 11% will fall back down into the water keeping it at a constant level.
All-in-all: If you melt every iceberg on the planet, the water level will remain consistent.
But here is something that wasnt mentioned. There is MORE ice on LAND than in the water. If the ice on the land was to melt just a bit - I'm talking maybe just 1 or 2 F degrees hotter, the entire sea level will be raised by aproximately 250 feet.
With this in mind - I am scared of global warming because Houston is 8-42 feet about see level. We would all die if this was to happen. And I for one do not know that if they were to melt, would the water come flowing fast ? or would it just slowly raise a few inches everyday ? This is something I can't seem to come to a conclusion with. But it scares me.
So you mean if the water level were to rise 250 feet we'd finally be rid of texas and all that reside there? Anyone have a giant magnifying glass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy
Yup. Forgot about that. You're fun! You think this would result in a slight lowering of atmospheric pressure since there would be less icebergs sticking up in the air for those molecules to bounce off of (which when there is more "bouncing" and less space in the atmosphere, there's more pressure?) ;)Quote:
Actually the water level would stay the same. According to Archimedes' principle of floatation (I think it's his principle), 90m kg of displaced water would result in an upthrust that would hold up 90m kg of ice. Thus the ice berg is actually 90m kg heavy so it would generate 90m kg of water when melted. So the space taken up by the ice at first would just be filled up exactly by the water resulting from the melted iceberg. However, due to impurities, there might be a slight increase/drop as opposed to the expected constant sea level.
Rod Steele
Only about 40% of Texas - maybe 50% - would be submerged. The rest is mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by sfalexi
And about the air pressure - thats a good question - never really thought or heard of it before. My logic tells me that the pressure would remain constant also. For one, the amount of atmosphere vs. iceberg tips is WAY different, the pressure wouldn't change if the icebergs were removed. Second of all, gravity holds the atmosphere down, thus creating pressure. If the icebergs were gone, the gravity would pull the atmosphere to fill in the space and the outwer atmostphere would seem to "go away", thus making the pressure stay at a constant ~14psi. But I could be wrong - I never researched this before...Quote:
Originally Posted by sfalexi
Atmospheric pressure should increase a little bit I THINK. I'm not so sure, but to me since pressure = force divided by area with force remaining constant but area decreasing slightly since there are no more "bumps" caused by ice bergs now, pressure should increase. Though the surface area of the Earth would not be affected too much just by the ice bergs melting (and thus the pressure would not be affected much too).
Anyway, the thing Billy pointed out about ice on land is true. Which is why like I said in an earlier post people should be more worried about Antarctica melting rather than the North Pole melting unless up till now they still believe in Santa.
p.s. I think Singapore should get some rich guy to get a ship (or ships) to drag ice bergs to Singapore to cool us down lol. (actually you can just ignore this comment, it's utter crap :P)
You're thinking 2D (dimensionally). THEN the pressure = force divided by area. You have to think 3D for this one. In which case I would think the formula would follow something more along the lines of pressure = force divided by volume. Since there's MORE volume in the atmosphere, it'd ever so slightly decrease.Quote:
Originally Posted by GBRaul
Now THERE'S that high IQ brain at work! Nice argument Billy! I can't seem to find something wrong with that statement!Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy
Rod Steele
Can't you just think along the lines of surface area? I am not very sure cos I'm not exactly THAT into physics, I'm more into mathematics :D