<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 2012 &#8211; The (2009) Movie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/</link>
	<description>I show you astronomy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:31:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ally</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-5301</link>
		<dc:creator>Ally</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-5301</guid>
		<description>Hey there! Thanks for that AWESOME review of the movie. Your review had me laughing for the whole time I read it.

I would like to point out that the Yellowstone hot spot (also called a Super volcano) would not erupt as the 2012 movie depicted. Super volcanoes erupt in different ways than regular volcanoes. 

The caldera of the Yellowstone super volcano is very large. When magma finally erupts, the material atop the caldera collapses into it. This produces several columns of magma around the rim of the caldera. The magma, dust and gas is ejected as far as 50 kilometers into the atmosphere. Some of this material, being too heavy to remain in the atmosphere, plummets right back down. The ash cloud from a Yellowstone eruption would circle the earth and block out the sun for a very long time.

Anyone within up to 200 miles of that volcanic blast would be vaporized instantly by either the initial blast, the falling debris or the pyroclastic cloud. John Cusak and his family, standing that close to the eruption, would have been toast. 

If, by some miracle of divine intervention, the blast did not do the job, there is no way that any vehicle could outrun a pyroclastic cloud like that. None whatsoever. Planes and automobiles would not be able to function in the falling ash, which, by the way, would be raining down in a radius of 600 miles. Volcanic ash clogs up machinary, at least in that kind of volume.

ALSO, Mr. Cusak&#039;s family should have been choking on the volcanic ash that should have been pouring down on them. When volcanic ash enters a human&#039;s lungs, it basically turns to cement. Want a reference for that? Simply look up Pompeii.

At the very least, that family should have been deaf from the sonic boom of the explosion. As for the dead buffalo, that was one of the realistic effects of the movie. Before a volcano erupts, it slowly begins to emit gases that typically kill plant and wild life.

Anyway, thought I would put in my two cents. I absolutely love disaster movies, but I prefer the science to make sense. It doesn&#039;t have to be perfect, but 2012 was just ludicrous. Almost as bad as &quot;The Core.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there! Thanks for that AWESOME review of the movie. Your review had me laughing for the whole time I read it.</p>
<p>I would like to point out that the Yellowstone hot spot (also called a Super volcano) would not erupt as the 2012 movie depicted. Super volcanoes erupt in different ways than regular volcanoes. </p>
<p>The caldera of the Yellowstone super volcano is very large. When magma finally erupts, the material atop the caldera collapses into it. This produces several columns of magma around the rim of the caldera. The magma, dust and gas is ejected as far as 50 kilometers into the atmosphere. Some of this material, being too heavy to remain in the atmosphere, plummets right back down. The ash cloud from a Yellowstone eruption would circle the earth and block out the sun for a very long time.</p>
<p>Anyone within up to 200 miles of that volcanic blast would be vaporized instantly by either the initial blast, the falling debris or the pyroclastic cloud. John Cusak and his family, standing that close to the eruption, would have been toast. </p>
<p>If, by some miracle of divine intervention, the blast did not do the job, there is no way that any vehicle could outrun a pyroclastic cloud like that. None whatsoever. Planes and automobiles would not be able to function in the falling ash, which, by the way, would be raining down in a radius of 600 miles. Volcanic ash clogs up machinary, at least in that kind of volume.</p>
<p>ALSO, Mr. Cusak&#8217;s family should have been choking on the volcanic ash that should have been pouring down on them. When volcanic ash enters a human&#8217;s lungs, it basically turns to cement. Want a reference for that? Simply look up Pompeii.</p>
<p>At the very least, that family should have been deaf from the sonic boom of the explosion. As for the dead buffalo, that was one of the realistic effects of the movie. Before a volcano erupts, it slowly begins to emit gases that typically kill plant and wild life.</p>
<p>Anyway, thought I would put in my two cents. I absolutely love disaster movies, but I prefer the science to make sense. It doesn&#8217;t have to be perfect, but 2012 was just ludicrous. Almost as bad as &#8220;The Core.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alicesastroinfo</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4861</link>
		<dc:creator>alicesastroinfo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:12:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4861</guid>
		<description>I agree that science fiction is not meant to be a documentary! :) That&#039;s why I watch more science fiction than documentaries.

For the rest I&#039;m going to say yes with caveats. Yellowstone is a hot spot. This does not necessarily mean it will become a volcano. It could, but it is more complicated than that since magma occurs in places other than just volcanoes. It is most definitely volcanic - and the region is most definitely geologically interesting - and the fact remains that it could become unstable which wouldn&#039;t be too good for anyone in the area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that science fiction is not meant to be a documentary! :) That&#8217;s why I watch more science fiction than documentaries.</p>
<p>For the rest I&#8217;m going to say yes with caveats. Yellowstone is a hot spot. This does not necessarily mean it will become a volcano. It could, but it is more complicated than that since magma occurs in places other than just volcanoes. It is most definitely volcanic &#8211; and the region is most definitely geologically interesting &#8211; and the fact remains that it could become unstable which wouldn&#8217;t be too good for anyone in the area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vania</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4858</link>
		<dc:creator>vania</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:15:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4858</guid>
		<description>I liked it and I would like to consider the true part of it. The part that the authorities lie to save them and some other for money, the fact that everything would change, Einstein supported it. That is interesting. Science fitcion is like that ... some is real some is not... otherwise that would be a documentary... which is not the case but is interesting to know that this theory exists. Under the Yellowstone park is a huge mass of magma and is well known this will be a volcano some day .. and this volcano alone seems that could kill one fouth of the entire population.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I liked it and I would like to consider the true part of it. The part that the authorities lie to save them and some other for money, the fact that everything would change, Einstein supported it. That is interesting. Science fitcion is like that &#8230; some is real some is not&#8230; otherwise that would be a documentary&#8230; which is not the case but is interesting to know that this theory exists. Under the Yellowstone park is a huge mass of magma and is well known this will be a volcano some day .. and this volcano alone seems that could kill one fouth of the entire population.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hale-bopp</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4479</link>
		<dc:creator>hale-bopp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4479</guid>
		<description>Excellent, Jana!  I thought of that after I posted my little remarks.

Just another little quip: I thought the conventional myth is that the Mayans predicted the end of the world on December 21st, 2012.  Did it look like December weather in Yellowstone when they were there?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent, Jana!  I thought of that after I posted my little remarks.</p>
<p>Just another little quip: I thought the conventional myth is that the Mayans predicted the end of the world on December 21st, 2012.  Did it look like December weather in Yellowstone when they were there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jana</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4449</link>
		<dc:creator>Jana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4449</guid>
		<description>Movie summary - explosions were fun to watch. Science was so bad that I had trouble suspending disbelief, meaning that I was laughing too hard to enjoy the movie.

And really, if these super mutant neutrinos are heating things up in the centre of the earth to the point where the water is boiling and people are made mostly of water... Why didn&#039;t we just boil inside our own skins way before the &#039;disaster&#039; actually happened?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Movie summary &#8211; explosions were fun to watch. Science was so bad that I had trouble suspending disbelief, meaning that I was laughing too hard to enjoy the movie.</p>
<p>And really, if these super mutant neutrinos are heating things up in the centre of the earth to the point where the water is boiling and people are made mostly of water&#8230; Why didn&#8217;t we just boil inside our own skins way before the &#8216;disaster&#8217; actually happened?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alicesastroinfo</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4410</link>
		<dc:creator>alicesastroinfo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4410</guid>
		<description>Jim - 

:) Thanks for pointing out some of the stuff I missed.

I&#039;m sorry I was unclear in my first paragraph. I, like a number of other people, LOVE watching movies in order to nitpick the science. I find it fun, and love getting my money&#039;s worth of nitpicking in. Now, some of the nitpickers out there get angry about the mistakes. As tone of voice doesn&#039;t come though perfectly in writing, I can see how it might seem that my review is in that category. I will work on portraying myself more accurately. I mostly get angry when incorrect science is used in such a way as to convince real people to do harmful things in the real world. Being scared during the movie on behalf of the characters is one thing. Being scared in the real world of something entirely impossible that you&#039;ve been told is &quot;science&quot; is another. You&#039;ve got a great handle on this - you&#039;re SO RIGHT it&#039;s just a movie. Which is why I had a great time writing up this review and retelling the plot to my friends and laughing at it.

-Alice</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim &#8211; </p>
<p>:) Thanks for pointing out some of the stuff I missed.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sorry I was unclear in my first paragraph. I, like a number of other people, LOVE watching movies in order to nitpick the science. I find it fun, and love getting my money&#8217;s worth of nitpicking in. Now, some of the nitpickers out there get angry about the mistakes. As tone of voice doesn&#8217;t come though perfectly in writing, I can see how it might seem that my review is in that category. I will work on portraying myself more accurately. I mostly get angry when incorrect science is used in such a way as to convince real people to do harmful things in the real world. Being scared during the movie on behalf of the characters is one thing. Being scared in the real world of something entirely impossible that you&#8217;ve been told is &#8220;science&#8221; is another. You&#8217;ve got a great handle on this &#8211; you&#8217;re SO RIGHT it&#8217;s just a movie. Which is why I had a great time writing up this review and retelling the plot to my friends and laughing at it.</p>
<p>-Alice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alicesastroinfo</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4409</link>
		<dc:creator>alicesastroinfo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4409</guid>
		<description>hale-Bopp,

Thanks for the updates! It&#039;s impossible to catch everything in one viewing. :)

-Alice</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hale-Bopp,</p>
<p>Thanks for the updates! It&#8217;s impossible to catch everything in one viewing. :)</p>
<p>-Alice</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hale-Bopp</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4344</link>
		<dc:creator>hale-Bopp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:05:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4344</guid>
		<description>Good summmary...I will add a few things since it is hard to catch everything!

First, the weird neutrino phenomena.  If this could happen we would know it by now. There are a couple hundred billion stars in our galaxy and I bet, if this could happen, other stars would be doing it.  These neutrinos are easily detected in the movie (much more easily than regular neutrinos) so we should be detecting these things from other stars (in low numbers at least) all the time!

Next, the mountain in Yellowstone where they watch the eruption is listed at an elevation of 2300 and some feet (they said this and it was printed on the sign).  No where in Yellowstone is 2700 feet!  The whole place is above 7000 feet in elevation.  Could they have meant meters?  Okay, nit picky but should be obvious to anyone who has ever been to Yellowstone and tried to breathe there that you are at a significant elevation.

As the plane takes off from Yellowstone, it is overtaken by the blast wave from the volcano. Planes need to attain certain airspeed (in the case of this plane I believe he said it was a little of 80 knots when they took off from LA).  If you are inside the shock wave moving at the same speed as it, your airspeed is zero and you are NOT going to get airborne.  

I could go on, but my team is about to play :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good summmary&#8230;I will add a few things since it is hard to catch everything!</p>
<p>First, the weird neutrino phenomena.  If this could happen we would know it by now. There are a couple hundred billion stars in our galaxy and I bet, if this could happen, other stars would be doing it.  These neutrinos are easily detected in the movie (much more easily than regular neutrinos) so we should be detecting these things from other stars (in low numbers at least) all the time!</p>
<p>Next, the mountain in Yellowstone where they watch the eruption is listed at an elevation of 2300 and some feet (they said this and it was printed on the sign).  No where in Yellowstone is 2700 feet!  The whole place is above 7000 feet in elevation.  Could they have meant meters?  Okay, nit picky but should be obvious to anyone who has ever been to Yellowstone and tried to breathe there that you are at a significant elevation.</p>
<p>As the plane takes off from Yellowstone, it is overtaken by the blast wave from the volcano. Planes need to attain certain airspeed (in the case of this plane I believe he said it was a little of 80 knots when they took off from LA).  If you are inside the shock wave moving at the same speed as it, your airspeed is zero and you are NOT going to get airborne.  </p>
<p>I could go on, but my team is about to play :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4330</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4330</guid>
		<description>Hey, nice review and scientific analysis.
However, you do know that it&#039;s a movie, right? I mean, it&#039;s ok to present goofs and errors in the movie (for which I would rather go IMDB), but to get so personal about it... I dunno.

Of course it&#039;s about our planet, so it should respect our physics and geography and whatnot; but again, it is a movie, and it&#039;s a sci-fi for that matter. You are presenting the goofs in a manner which makes the review look more like a frustration at how much fail the movie was. MOVIE. Not reality show. Flicks over the years have been known to disgrace every scientific fact ever; if we would stick to the rules then I guess it wouldn&#039;t be much of a movie, would it?

But it is indeed a good review. Although I assume one should be extremely ignorant not to notice some of the most obvious goofs, such as the planets seen from outer space.

I think you missed a few goofs, though - the Antonov (or whatever the huge plane was) had its landing gear destroyed, therefor the initial plan to land in Hawaii was pretty stupid. And since we&#039;re in Hawaii, they should probably think twice about landing there, since Yellowstone erupted not long ago, and considering the Pacific&#039;s &#039;fire ring).

Once again, good review.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, nice review and scientific analysis.<br />
However, you do know that it&#8217;s a movie, right? I mean, it&#8217;s ok to present goofs and errors in the movie (for which I would rather go IMDB), but to get so personal about it&#8230; I dunno.</p>
<p>Of course it&#8217;s about our planet, so it should respect our physics and geography and whatnot; but again, it is a movie, and it&#8217;s a sci-fi for that matter. You are presenting the goofs in a manner which makes the review look more like a frustration at how much fail the movie was. MOVIE. Not reality show. Flicks over the years have been known to disgrace every scientific fact ever; if we would stick to the rules then I guess it wouldn&#8217;t be much of a movie, would it?</p>
<p>But it is indeed a good review. Although I assume one should be extremely ignorant not to notice some of the most obvious goofs, such as the planets seen from outer space.</p>
<p>I think you missed a few goofs, though &#8211; the Antonov (or whatever the huge plane was) had its landing gear destroyed, therefor the initial plan to land in Hawaii was pretty stupid. And since we&#8217;re in Hawaii, they should probably think twice about landing there, since Yellowstone erupted not long ago, and considering the Pacific&#8217;s &#8216;fire ring).</p>
<p>Once again, good review.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alicesastroinfo</title>
		<link>http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/2009/11/2012-the-2009-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-4170</link>
		<dc:creator>alicesastroinfo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicesastroinfo.com/?p=972#comment-4170</guid>
		<description>I think I agree entirely camazotz!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I agree entirely camazotz!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
