2012
Yesterday I went to see 2012, the new movie by Roland Emmerich. It was a LOT of fun. I love so-called "disaster porn" movies, the genre including Dante's Peak, Volcano, Cloverfield, Independence Day, the Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact, the Core, etc. What these films have in common is that they gratuitously display major scenes of destruction as a way of luring audiences to the theater. Most have a plot stapled on too! And maybe some pretty celebrities!
The science is not all there, though. I'm sure you're shocked to hear that.
Here's Emmerich's scenario:
Planetary alignment --> solar flares --> neutrino storm --> neutrinos heat up Earth's interior --> crust gets detached and starts sliding around willy-nilly -->hilarity apocalypse ensues
Here's the problems with that:
One of the main characters is a geologist, which is cool. The scene of Yellowstone erupting was probably the neatest part for me, geologically. Even crazy man Woody Harrelson thinks so, and it's the last thing he ever sees. The magnitude 10-plus earthquake that hits southern California/Las Vegas is pretty awesome visually, but doesn't really square with geological realities of how earthquakes happen. Basically the way Emmerich runs the show, soCal breaks into a huge number of separate chunks which mainly move apart from one another, although occasionally they exhibit convergent motion (maybe 1% of the time). Mostly, it's huge chasms opening up, and people/cars/buildings/airplanes/trains/Russians dropping into them. And of course, "California slides into the sea" (that old trope which ain't actually what geologists predict for the Golden State*).
There's a plot, too, but who really cares about that? That's not why you go to see 2012. So I won't even bother. Go for the effects; revel in the destruction of the world, but try not to think about the death of billions. It's all about planetary chaos, adrenaline, eye-popping awesomeness. You know you like to watch.
Some reviews worth reading:
The science is not all there, though. I'm sure you're shocked to hear that.
Here's Emmerich's scenario:
Planetary alignment --> solar flares --> neutrino storm --> neutrinos heat up Earth's interior --> crust gets detached and starts sliding around willy-nilly -->
Here's the problems with that:
- Planetary alignments don't trigger solar flares.
- Neutrinos (mostly) don't interact with matter in the Earth. (50 million neutrinos will pass through your body today without any issues that we're aware of.)
One of the main characters is a geologist, which is cool. The scene of Yellowstone erupting was probably the neatest part for me, geologically. Even crazy man Woody Harrelson thinks so, and it's the last thing he ever sees. The magnitude 10-plus earthquake that hits southern California/Las Vegas is pretty awesome visually, but doesn't really square with geological realities of how earthquakes happen. Basically the way Emmerich runs the show, soCal breaks into a huge number of separate chunks which mainly move apart from one another, although occasionally they exhibit convergent motion (maybe 1% of the time). Mostly, it's huge chasms opening up, and people/cars/buildings/airplanes/trains/Russians dropping into them. And of course, "California slides into the sea" (that old trope which ain't actually what geologists predict for the Golden State*).
There's a plot, too, but who really cares about that? That's not why you go to see 2012. So I won't even bother. Go for the effects; revel in the destruction of the world, but try not to think about the death of billions. It's all about planetary chaos, adrenaline, eye-popping awesomeness. You know you like to watch.
Some reviews worth reading:
____________________________________________________
* A better depiction can be seen in the AGI-produced Faces of Earth, episode 2, where Los Angeles (still a city much like the current one ~10 million years in the future), atop the block of continental crust west of the San Andreas Fault, slides past San Fransisco, briefly merging the two megalopoli into one.
Labels: california, movies, pseudoscience, science and society, sun
2 Comments:
I saw 2012 also and thought it was very entertaining with the special effects. They did have too many exaggerated close encounters, of barely escaping death. They could have gone in a little more detail about the true history of 2012. As far as what would happen with the poles shifting I think they did a good job.
I was wondering about the fossil record, that if every 26,000 years that the Earth, Sun and Galactic center all line up, if we can see evidence from that in the past for a polar shift. The Mayans must have been brilliant to know how everything would line up without technology with telescopes and computers and to even know there is a center of our Galaxy way back then. But what worries me is the information from so many different cultures and people, the Bible code, prophets, modern day visions like the Web Bot from the internet, government, Hopi Indians, Mayans, Merlin, I-Ching, astronomy, and Egyptians.
They all predict the same thing. Maybe nothing will happen but it does seem like a big coincidence.
Are you kidding?
You're either kidding, or you're seriously uninformed.
No, there is no 26,000-year periodicity to either changes in the fossil record or "polar shifts," by which I assume you mean magnetic reversals.
Two minutes on Google could have told you the same, though.
The movie "2012" does not show poles shifting that I recall, but instead "crustal destablization," for which there is also no evidence (at the scale depicted in the movie) in the geologic record.
Post a Comment
<< Home