John Carter of Mars Thread

[Theagenes]

That looks sweet! I'm psyched to see this.

[Reno McCoy]

Can't wait!

[rodan57]

What if? time.

 

This is a question for the scientists among us. Carter can be very strong under a weaker gravity given his Earth-developed muscles, but wouldn't the mass of objects remain the same?

 

Let's say he can jump five times as high against his own now reduced weight but could he lift a rock five times heavier than on the Earth? The rock is "lighter" but the mass is the same?

 

What's the relationship between weight and mass?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

What if? time.

 

This is a question for the scientists among us. Carter can be very strong under a weaker gravity given his Earth-developed muscles, but wouldn't the mass of objects remain the same?

 

Let's say he can jump five times as high against his own now reduced weight but could he lift a rock five times heavier than on the Earth? The rock is "lighter" but the mass is the same?

 

What's the relationship between weight and mass?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

but wouldn't the mass of objects remain the same?

 

Yes, mass remains constant.

 

could he lift a rock five times heavier than on the Earth?

 

Yes.

 

F=M*A

 

Force equals mass times acceleration.

 

In this case, gravity (G) is the acceleration, so the equation becomes:

 

F=M*G

 

If G is multiplied by 1/5, then since M is constant, the equation becomes equal when F is multiplied by 1/5.

 

In other words, if gravity reduced to 1/5 normal, then the force required to move the same mass is also reduced by 1/5.

 

Swinging a mass (like a rock on the end of a chain) is a whole different story though. At some point the centrifugal force associated with a large mass would overcome the two forces (weight and friction) acting on the swinger (John Carter at the origin point).

[RedRaven]

The mass of the rock would be the same but the force required to accelrate that mass will be different due to the lesser gravity on Mars than on Earth.

 

So on earth a rock with a weight of 1 kilogram exerts 9.8 newtons of force that your muscles must overcome in order to lift it.

 

On mars your same muscles have to exert 3.6 newtons of force to lif the rock even though the rock has the same mass

 

So, the relation of weight to mass requires gravity and we get....

 

W=M*G

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I had a year of Physics in college almost 18 years ago and I remember approximately nothing. The above was collated from my failing neurons cross joined with the interweb.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

The mass of the rock would be the same but the force required to accelrate that mass will be different due to the lesser gravity on Mars than on Earth.

 

So on earth a rock with a weight of 1 kilogram exerts 9.8 newtons of force that your muscles must overcome in order to lift it.

 

On mars your same muscles have to exert 3.6 newtons of force to lif the rock even though the rock has the same mass

 

So, the relation of weight to mass requires gravity and we get....

 

W=M*G

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I had a year of Physics in college almost 18 years ago and I remember approximately nothing. The above was collated from my failing neurons cross joined with the interweb.

 

 

If you can remember ANY of that from college 18 years ago, then you weren't partying hard enough at the time.

[Reno McCoy]

Just scored tickets to a screening of John Carter next week.

[rodan57]

This is a question for the scientists among us. Carter can be very strong under a weaker gravity given his Earth-developed muscles, but wouldn't the mass of objects remain the same?

 

Let's say he can jump five times as high against his own now reduced weight but could he lift a rock five times heavier than on the Earth? The rock is "lighter" but the mass is the same?

 

What's the relationship between weight and mass?

 

but wouldn't the mass of objects remain the same?

 

Yes, mass remains constant.

 

could he lift a rock five times heavier than on the Earth?

 

Yes.

 

F=M*A

 

Force equals mass times acceleration.

 

In this case, gravity (G) is the acceleration, so the equation becomes:

 

F=M*G

 

If G is multiplied by 1/5, then since M is constant, the equation becomes equal when F is multiplied by 1/5.

 

In other words, if gravity reduced to 1/5 normal, then the force required to move the same mass is also reduced by 1/5.

 

Swinging a mass (like a rock on the end of a chain) is a whole different story though. At some point the centrifugal force associated with a large mass would overcome the two forces (weight and friction) acting on the swinger (John Carter at the origin point).

 

 

The mass of the rock would be the same but the force required to accelrate that mass will be different due to the lesser gravity on Mars than on Earth.

 

So on earth a rock with a weight of 1 kilogram exerts 9.8 newtons of force that your muscles must overcome in order to lift it.

 

On mars your same muscles have to exert 3.6 newtons of force to lif the rock even though the rock has the same mass

 

So, the relation of weight to mass requires gravity and we get....

 

W=M*G

 

Disclaimer: I had a year of Physics in college almost 18 years ago and I remember approximately nothing. The above was collated from my failing neurons cross joined with the interweb.

 

Thanks, guys. (thumbs u

[tilleycs]

I've known about the John Carter character for years from the comic covers, but was never interested in the character. However, with the upcoming movie, I decided to give the original stories a try. I found an e-book for my Nook that contains all of ERB's novels that are now in the public domain for only 99 cents on B&N's site (very handy to have all of them in one e-book).

 

I finished the first story (A Princess of Mars) on my lunchtime yesterday, and I REALLY enjoyed the book. Hard to believe that the first part was first published a hundred years ago. I've already started the second book, and am looking forward to reading the entire series. I look forward to seeing how the movie compares to the book(s).

[nearmint]

Read an article the other day that talked about how worried Disney is about this film. The final budget was 250M, and it would take 400M in box office to break even. All this for a character not well known by the general public, and no big stars in the cast. The studio that brought you Mars Needs Moms(budget 150, gross 39M) last year is very worried.

[tilleycs]

Read an article the other day that talked about how worried Disney is about this film. The final budget was 250M, and it would take 400M in box office to break even. All this for a character not well known by the general public, and no big stars in the cast. The studio that brought you Mars Needs Moms(budget 150, gross 39M) last year is very worried.

 

I can understand that. When I first saw the movie preview, my first thought was, "Why in the world did they make THAT???" Not that I think it will be bad, but will people really flock to this movie? No doubt it will cause some people to go back and read the stories (which are in the public domain, so they can be obtained for free), and some people who have read the stories might go the movie, but this is FAR from a slam dunk, revenue-wise.

 

But I'm sure someone, somewhere along the line may have, oh, addressed this issue? Maybe? The point about JC not being a well known (or captivating) character on his own is very true. I know OF the character for years, but only because I saw him on the covers of comic books. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have ever heard of JC.

[DiceX]

I plan to help them out with a viewing or two in theaters.

I may be more excited about this movie than anything else until December when The Hobbit comes out. (thumbs u

 

 

[nearmint]

But I'm sure someone, somewhere along the line may have, oh, addressed this issue? Maybe?

 

The studio head that green-lit the movie is no longer with the company.

[tilleycs]

But I'm sure someone, somewhere along the line may have, oh, addressed this issue? Maybe?

 

The studio head that green-lit the movie is no longer with the company.

 

Ah, gotcha. Didn't know that. It will be interesting to see how the movie does. I always think that Disney movies have a chance to make tons of money through merchandise, DVDs, toys, clothes, dolls, etc. But this isn't being marketed toward kids the way most Disney movies are, IMO.

[nearmint]

But I'm sure someone, somewhere along the line may have, oh, addressed this issue? Maybe?

 

The studio head that green-lit the movie is no longer with the company.

 

Ah, gotcha. Didn't know that. It will be interesting to see how the movie does. I always think that Disney movies have a chance to make tons of money through merchandise, DVDs, toys, clothes, dolls, etc. But this isn't being marketed toward kids the way most Disney movies are, IMO.

 

Normally, I'd agree, but that sure didn't happen for Mars Needs Moms.

[Reno McCoy]

From what I'm understanding is that Disney is worried about the awareness of this movie. People off the street were polled, and too few people even knew the movie existed. I think that has something to do with them calling it John Carter instead of Warlord of Mars, or Princess of Mars, or whatever.

 

But they've been doing a media blitz of late, and I'm guessing that more people know about it now. And, to be honest, if a movie is any good, word of mouth will get them into the theater.

 

Of course, with Hunger Games coming out just a few weeks after JC, they better get butts in seats pronto!

[tilleycs]

From what I'm understanding is that Disney is worried about the awareness of this movie. People off the street were polled, and too few people even knew the movie existed. I think that has something to do with them calling it John Carter instead of Warlord of Mars, or Princess of Mars, or whatever.

 

True. I wondered that, too, when I saw that they hadn't even titled it "John Carter of Mars" (even though he was technically not "of Mars"), esp. when you see the red J, C, and M toward the end of some of the trailers. Calling him a warlord may convey the wrong image of him to people who aren't familiar with the character/storyline (since warlords tend to be the bad guys), though, so that might explain why they didn't use "Warlord" in the title. And "A Princess of Mars" could confuse it w/ the B-movie that was made a few years ago.

[ForlornOutcast]

Never read any JCoM stuff. I'm contemplating going to this. Looks like it'd be an allright flick.

[kdoginohio]

Never read any JCoM stuff. I'm contemplating going to this. Looks like it'd be an allright flick.

Great books. Is it just me, or is Dejah Thoris over-dressed in this film?

[DiceX]

From what I'm understanding is that Disney is worried about the awareness of this movie. People off the street were polled, and too few people even knew the movie existed. I think that has something to do with them calling it John Carter instead of Warlord of Mars, or Princess of Mars, or whatever.

 

True. I wondered that, too, when I saw that they hadn't even titled it "John Carter of Mars" (even though he was technically not "of Mars"), esp. when you see the red J, C, and M toward the end of some of the trailers. Calling him a warlord may convey the wrong image of him to people who aren't familiar with the character/storyline (since warlords tend to be the bad guys), though, so that might explain why they didn't use "Warlord" in the title. And "A Princess of Mars" could confuse it w/ the B-movie that was made a few years ago.

 

They could have gone with "Warrior of Mars" and picked up a few viewers.