It looks like in the trailer there's gravity on Mars. I mean I could accept it in the base, but walking/running on the surface?
Am I missing something or will all be explained in the movie?
We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.
Well, Mars does have gravity.
http://www.ask.com/question/how-much-gravity-does-mars-have
"Mars has about 38% the gravity of Earth. So if an object weighs around 100 pounds it would only weight 38 pounds on Mars. Moving to Mars would be a great way to lose weight quickly."
I'm sure you can find more info if you google it.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that John Carter (not Warlord of Mars, thanks to the brainiacs at Disney) illustrated the lower gravity in that he was able to leap high and far because he was conditioned to Earth's gravitational pull. Maybe that's because no one saw it.
shareI'm surprised no one has mentioned that John Carter (not Warlord of Mars, thanks to the brainiacs at Disney) illustrated the lower gravity in that he was able to leap high and far because he was conditioned to Earth's gravitational pull. Maybe that's because no one saw it.
Superman was told he is not from earth at about 15(smallville) or younger(man of steel)so I don't know what the hell you are talking about
shareSuperman was told he is not from earth at about 15(smallville) or younger(man of steel)so I don't know what the hell you are talking about
for arguments sake I could say we don't know if its the 1st time he attempted to fly but I get ya
shareLow gravitation of Mars was the initial explanation to Carter's "super human" powers already in original books written by E.R. Burroughs, almost 100 years ago.
In that sense the science behind these powers is correct.
Nevertheless, Burroughs - or anyone else - did not know during those days that staying in low G conditions for prolonged time weakens muscles very quickly. So in fact Carter would have had his powers only for couple of months max, weakening radically at the same time to the level of my skinny pc-mouse moving hand.
But who cares, there is not enough oxygen, or breathable air nor atmospheric pressure for humans to survive in Mars. Without astronaut's gear... instant death.
As usually always, real science ruins sci-fi and fantasy.
But the most sh***y thing is that there are no martians neither i.e. no Dejah Thoris, dudes...
There are some spectacular stories, like Revelation Space, that adhere to real science -- no FTL, no wormhole travel, no impossible tech, just humans surviving in extremely inhospitable space.
In some ways it forces writers to be more inventive, since they no longer have magical plot devices in their stories.
Believe me i was thinking the exact same. I had that in mind the whole time when i saw Campbell running on Mars, and i recalled John Carter who showed leaping on Mars. Atleast the writers of this film could have previous findings in mind and proceed.
shareThe heavy space suits would add to their weight, just as it did for the moon landing astronauts, which is why they couldn't jump as high as one might like.
BTW: I find it truly amazing than ANYONE might think Mars has *no* gravity. An entire planet of matter? ?Didn't the OP writer attend any kind of school? lol
OP is a troll. His (or her) spelling and grammar are too good for an uneducated person. No-one who watches a sci fi flick would think a large planet will have no grav.
share@terryperring104
Sorry, but did you actually read through the thread or just the first post?
I'm tired of apologizing and having to clarify what I was really trying to ask. It seems like it's others who are the trolls, by just posting their ignorant replies without putting any thought into the question. Instead there are people like you who assume I am a Troll.
"...a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."
If I was a Troll I would NOT have voiced my inability to word the question correctly and attempted to "set the record straight" In fact, if you had read what darucula-1 posted, he/she understood my question. I would suggest it's reply's like yours that fosters the continual "bashing" of my, admittedly poorly posted question.
I might add though, I appreciated the fact that you recognized and acknowledged that I am not an uneducated moron as some others have assumed.
For further enlightenment, I would suggest you go the this thread regarding another Mars movie, The Martian...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/board/flat/244772286?p=1
Where the OP asks a similar question, yet does NOT get accused of being a moron or a Troll. But then again, I guess he worded his question better?
Unfortunately IMDB has edited this thread, it used to be 10 pages long...10 pages! I had posted a reply stating, I could see the appeal for someone to be a Troll, based on the reactions. But this was not my intention and further more I did NOT post any reply's to further "fan the flame". If you were to look @ any other posts of mine, you would realize I don't post inflammatory or extraneous messages to elicit emotional responses. But then I guess it's easier to reply with ignorance as you and others have done.
I applaud those who actually read ALL my posts and get what I was asking. The fact that IMDB has decided to cut down the actually number of posts that exist has unfortunately turned this thread into a cluster F--K!
As far as I am concerned this topic is done.
We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.
~Well that's me told then~
Hey-sorry, you're right-I didn't read all your explanations.
I'm sorry if I caused offence-I don't like to do that to anyone. :-)
I sought out your other comments in this thread. Yeah, even proofreading, saying exactly what you mean to say, won't save you from trolls if you express an original thought. The best thing to do is to ignore the troll.
Somebody could do a study on how many comments on IMDB Message Boards have more to do with commenting on the previous comment's validity based on seemingly random personal opinion versus any kind of research of or relevance to the subject at hand, owing in large part to a natural desire to get the last word in, which is exactly that on which trolls feed. I'll bet the proportion is close to 10 to 1.
That's purely my opinion.
I can't believe this thread is still alive? I remember when it used to be 10 pages long? Somehow IMDB has cut it down?
Wow..I'd hate to look up The Martian & see what all the Fools like rockstar-40, drp04, elcablo, Harrysalt, and the like have to say about that one!? Get a life losers. YOU ARE THE TROLLS!
We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.
I saw it and made perfect sense to me. Part of the fun!
Skat
Yes, I think they actually do explain his ability due to the lower Martian gravity, IIRC.
That said, he still wouldn't be leaping to the sort of heights that we see in the movie.
The moon's gravity is 1/6 that of earth.
A high jumper on earth can jump about 7 feet.
So on the moon, he should be able to jump 42 (7x6) feet right? That would make for some awesome lunar Olympics, right?
Nope.
On the moon, our high jumper would be able to get to about 21 feet. Still impressive yes, but not nearly as much as 42 feet.
I'll leave it to IMDB readers to figure it out...
Wow!! I don't bother checking my account for a while & this?
I really did NOT expect to cause such a *beep* storm of responses to what I thought was a simple question. 5 pages of responses!?
Obviously, I should have worded my question more clearly. My mistake.
What I was questioning, based on the trailer it looks like the gravity on Mars is equal to the gravity on Earth. The characters move & interact with the environment as if they were on Earth.
Now I am not that thick to believe that there is NO gravity on Mars. But I know that it is NOT EQUAL to Earth's. I do not expect them to "float" around as if they were in space. And as for the reality of movie production costs....as I am sure some anal people will point out, yes I get that not every movie can afford the special effects to mimic what it would really be like on Mars.
I guess it's one of those movies that you just accept what is happening & focus on the story instead of the physics.
Now, anyone want to discuss the ability to breath on Mars like they did in Red Planet. Because I am so gullible that I believe anything I see on TV or movies & read about on the net!!
We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.
LOL.
In my experience, science fiction movies tend to generate the most discussion on IMDB. It seems everyone has an opinion on the accuracy or implications of the science in a movie.
You wanna see long threads, check out the boards for any time travel movie... you'll see A LOT of posts from obsessive-compulsives arguing incessantly about the nature of time travel. A lot will paraphrase wikipedia or other popular sources to suggest they're authorities on the subject, but most are blowing smoke.
Although I have physics and engineering degrees, for me a good story is more important than scientific accuracy. IMDB is filled with a lot of anal types who like to nitpick a movie's flaws... my response is usually to challenge them to 'think like a scriptwriter' to overcome/solve/explain the issue.
I actually enjoyed John Carter more than I thought... wasn't nearly as bad as reviews made it out.
Oh..I'd also like to comment on a few things.
1) If I caused all this fervor over a incorrectly worded post..then I can see why there are people who "Troll". They get to sit back & read the reply's. I mean one person asks if this was the dumbest question ever asked on IMDB...I am sure the real Trolls out there are gunning for me now!
2) I can't believe the number of people who are so quick to condemn my "schooling" are the same people who can't spell or complete a sentence. What's wrong with taking a second to check your spelling? Oh to used to spell checker & communicating using Text & Twitter. And you people question my education?
Finally, It would be nice if people would state who they are calling an idiot. I mean how does a Troll know if your demeaning him/her if you don't address them?
Come on people...get it together!
For my next post...
Did we really land on the Moon?
Now let the games begin!
We're all in strung out shape, but stay frosty, and alert.
Oh to used to spell checker & communicating using Text & Twitter. And you people question my education?
Not a quick way to loose weight as it takes almost 1 to 1.5 years to reach there even now, in this advanced age of technology. :P
sharewell, 62% of your body mass in 1 year is quite quick id say. that would be what 5 KG per month?
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
clearly it has gravity otherwise how would those Nasa rovers who send back photos stay on the ground?
shareQuick science lesson:
Everything has a gravitational pull. The bigger the mass, the bigger the pull/force. Mars, having less mass than Earth, has a lesser gravitational pull, therefore less gravity. So yes, we can walk and run on Mars, and if you jump, you won't float away forever, you just jump higher.
If Michael Jordan jumped on Mars, gravity 38% of Earth's (9.8 / 38% = approximately 3.7 is the acceleration of gravity? :)), would the Queen have enough time to down a small cup of tea - in principal - until he landed back down, is the real question. And ofc., would he hurt his knees (how fast is he moving on impact).
shareI suspect not. If the gravitational pull is weaker, then Jordan would be pulled back slower. It follows logically it would have the same effect on him wether he is jumping on mars or the earth.
But that's mostly guesswork on my part.
It`s far easier to start a war than to end one.
If he were only recently placed on Mars then I agree that he wouldn't get hurt.
But I believe (I might be wrong) that after much time on Mars with the decrease in gravity the persons bones would become less dense and more weak and their muscles would atrophy since they wouldn't use them nearly as hard as before. So if they jumped very high (which would actually be harder to do the longer you were on the planet, again because the loss of muscle) when they hit the ground it would take much less force to break bones and tear the muscles and tendons.
So my answer is "It depends on how long he was on Mars."
Resistance training would allow you to help maintain muscle tone and mass. Machines like bowflex or soloflex don't rely on weight. Even isometric training can be done easily without any weights. As for the bone mass, hell, just wear extra gear. Just make sure to keep the weight towards your feet though. The astronauts found out quickly when jumping on the moon they tended to twist in the air as their backpacks had all their weight they'd fall on their backs. So lead lined (or something less toxic) boots couldn't hurt.
shareIf Michael Jordan jumped on Mars, gravity 38% of Earth's (9.8 / 38% = approximately 3.7 is the acceleration of gravity? :)), would the Queen have enough time to down a small cup of tea - in principal - until he landed back down, is the real question. And ofc., would he hurt his knees (how fast is he moving on impact).
considering that Mars has significantly less atmosphere and thus less resistance, wouldnt a case could be made that due to jump not being high enough and as such not reaching terminal velocity earths atmosphere would actually slow him down more than that of mars?
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
The impact should be the same as on Earth, provided he jumped on his own (what goes up must come down, equally: same energy). If he fell the impact would be less from the same height on Mars.
share
Mars has a higher terminal velocity due to lower atmosphere drag. Since gravity is a constant his drop speed could be quite a bit faster, possibly even dangerous
But that effect would be neglible if jumping up on your own. If dropped from a height there would a difference, but even on Earth it would quickly become quite bone-breaking and on Mars the acceleration is lower, so there's a sweet spot height at which impact evens out.
I haven't done the math though.
I'm curious what the math would be, too. If Jordan weighs 225lbs and is able to jump 30 feet, how fast is he falling on Mars.
First thing to consider is that weight is a force (which is your mass times the acceleration you're pulled downward). So, if he's 225 lbs on earth, he'd weigh less on Mars.
The actual numbers would be
Gravity:
Earth: 32 ft/s^2
Mars: 12 ft/s^2
Earth: 225 lbs
Mars: 85 lbs
So, not only would he fall slower, but there'd be less force (weight) slamming into the ground.
The equation for what velocity is:
(velocity (final))^2 = (velocity (initial))^2 + (2 * acceleration * distance)
or
v(f)^2 = v(i)^2 + 2*a*d
At the peak of a jump, you have no velocity since you basically have stopped moving either direction, so the initial velocity is zero.
v(f)^2 = 0 + 2 * 12 ft/s^2 * 30ft
v(f)^2 = 720 ft^2/s^2
v(f) = square root (720 ft^2/s^2)
v(f) = 26.8 ft/s
That'd be the same as hitting the ground at 18 mph.
For comparison, to find how far you'd have to fall on earth to have the same speed when you hit the ground, just reverse the equation:
d = (v(f)^2 - v(i)^2) / (2 * a)
d = ((26.8 ft/s)^2 - 0) / (2 * 32 ft/s^2)
d = 720 ft^2/s^2 / 64ft/s^2
d = 11.25 ft
Remember that your weight/mass has nothing to do with how fast you fall.
So, falling 30 feet on Mars would be the same as falling 11.25 feet on Earth.
The big difference would be how hard he'd hit. Hitting the ground at 18mph when you're 225 lbs is a lot different than hitting the ground at 18mph at 85 lbs (especially if you have the body structure and strength of someone with 225 lbs).
I think you have to work out what force his muscles apply to the rest of his body from a crouch to the point where he leaves the ground. That is the only constant here. Derive the value for earth, based on his earth weight and how high he gets, then use this force to calculate the acceleration his reduced mass would receive to determine the velocity on Mars as he leaves the ground. Then use that with some ballistic equations to determine the height he reaches. Don't know if the velocity he hits the ground with would be greater (because of the greater height) or lower (because of the reduced gravity), and of course the impact is also determined by his adjusted weight. Probably easier to just go there and try it. How tall is Michael Jordan? That would be some spacesuit.
shareDon't know why, but I sort of lol'd at equations done with imperial measurements.
sharewell sir or mam??? well ur dum dum numers dnt make any sense ok so pls do NOT put them 2 here from ur puter ok????? well bcos it hurts on my brane 2 c it ok.......
shareJordan would land with almost exactly the energy he invested into his lift-off, just as it is on earth. His legs would absolutely be able to handle the forces of landing, since they are exactly what created that force in reverse shortly before.
The only energy you land with (in a jump that ends at the same altitude as it started) is the potential energy that your top height has stored in it when you are at the apex of your jump, briefly stopped in mid-air. That energy is limited to how hard you push off the planet, and is not different on any planet.
What IS different on Mars is how high that would be and, how long it would take to go up and down.
Air resistance and terminal velocities don't really play too big a role here, since our jump speeds tend to be fairly low, as related to a terminal velocity.
Funny, that wouldn't be my first question.
shareBut the tea would pour slower too.
shareThough in your post it almost sounds like earths gravitational pull doesnt effect you when you are on mars which isnt true
shareOf course it's true. You think gravity cares what's what? Every single particle in the entire universe is attracted to every single other particle in the entire universe.
In our case, the particles that make up the earth are winning, so we're here. If the earth disappears, we'd start heading toward the sun. If the sun disappeared, we'd start heading toward the nearest star. It's all on, all the time.
But it's proportionate as you get closer, so while it is true that every time we wiggle our fingers, we are moving the entire universe -- the amount is so small as to be unmeasurable or "practically nonexistent". But that is still the principal at work.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Everything with mass has a gravitational pull.
On average, the gravity on Earth is 1G. Yet that gravity can have subtle changes based on your distance from the center of the mass. You weigh LESS on top of Mount Everest than you would at sea level and the earth is NOT truly spherical as well. There are slight variances of G from the equator to the poles and all around the planet.
But all that aside, the gravity of another planetary mass is determined by its mass compared to that of Earth. Our Moon is 1/6 the mass of the Earth hence the gravitational pull is 1/6 of Earth. 100kg of mass will 'feel' like only 16.67kg on the moon.
As the prior poster stated, everything has a gravitational factor, as long as it has mass, which includes light as well. Has been documented many times over that light BENDS around strong gravitational fields.
Things with NO mass are not affected by gravity, like energy waves, gamma rays, x rays, etc... and also subatomic particles seem immune to gravity and have their own little rules going on, so I guess technically not everything with mass, after all. Quantum stuff has all different rules.
String Theory is what tries to tie them all together.
Actually had a friend that thought a vacuum creates a zero gravity environment, that it was the air that pushed us down. He was college educated and wouldn't budge from that.
Everything is more complicated than just yes or no, if you want to get at the truths.
Small point:
light BENDS around strong gravitational fields
around strong gravitational fieldsthe SPACE it is traveling through, under the influence of
strong gravitational fields,is bent, thus affecting the path the light takes. To the light, or its composite photons, it is traveling in a straight line relatively. To an objective observer it would appear to have "turned". That turn would be the gravity well defining the curvature of space.
WELL WUT????
shareBut all that aside, the gravity of another planetary mass is determined by its mass compared to that of Earth. Our Moon is 1/6 the mass of the Earth hence the gravitational pull is 1/6 of Earth.
Thanks for clearing that up HBB. Now I don't have to go to Wikipedia.
I was pretty sure that the 1/6 figure applied only to the moon's force of gravity relative to the earth -- and NOT to the relative masses.
I know a little physics.
Check it out. It's been years and I still remember this number:
G = 6.67 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2
___
All insults will be interpreted as an admission that you cannot contribute to the discussion.
3.7^2/81 times that of Earth
But maybe the astronauts lost some of their muscle power on the trip. Youve seen astronauts who've been in space for an extended period, they cant stand when they come back to Earth. Yes, the gravity on Mars is less but the astronauts had acclimatized to space and then Mars, hence they walked normally.
John Carter could jump about cos he went directly from Earth to Mars, ahem, Barsoom .... :-)
Hypertheotically, if u jump higher on mars does that mean you risk injury when falling back down, or is the return trip fairly gentle?
I mean no one really 'hurts' themselves doing a quick jump here on earth, but I wonder, if gravity is weaker and we tried to jump really high, how high are we talking? Can we jump off very high steeps and land safelyish back down due to lower gravity?
how do you think our own, real Mars rovers manage to keep themselves on the surface..... of course there's gravity on Mars!
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things. - George Carlinshare
Guess what Einstein rovers manage to keep themselves on the moon as well, go figure lol how dumb of you, which doesn't surprise me.
shareScroll down this thread & read all of your responses like I did - & like all others will in the future. Now go & delete them all in shame, you cretinous windowlicker.
No offence...
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh
Lol you are so nice, thank you for loving my comments and keep enjoying them.
shareTheres gravity everywhere in the universe, I think you mean if the gravity on mars is the same as earth
share[deleted]
But he's way smarter and more cool than you besides Hicks is a very cool name while your name Fronthingbubblegum or Frontstingbum is just dumb and ugly.
shareNo harm in asking. You don't learn anything if you don't ask.
Of course. Even Gas Giants have gravity.
A better question would be why is there a difference in gravity on planets of the same relative size?
A question for which I do not know the answer but I suspect it has something with what the planets are made of. Earth for instance has a core of molten iron. It stands to reason that a place like the moon would have lesser gravity because it's basically a rock through and through.
It`s far easier to start a war than to end one.
"A better question would be why is there a difference in gravity on planets of the same relative size? "
Gravity doesn't care about size, only mass. Two planets can have the same diameter without being equally dense therefor not have the same mass.