While most folks watch summer blockbuster action films with suspended critical faculties, it's a sure bet that there's someone in the crowd who will let out a haughty chortle, and exclaim "that wouldn't really happen that way!" during the penultimate action sequence. What's most frustrating about these exhortations is that they're often made by people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For instance, I once endured a debate between two roommates regarding the combustibility (or lack thereof) of diesel fuel. I still can't figure out today what would qualify either of them to announce their respective opinions with such certainty. Heck, I've even "debunked" certain action sequences myself in the past, and I rarely, if ever, know what I'm talking about.
So when someone comes along who actually does know what they're talking about, it's fun to listen to them. This website contains a series of articles written by informed physicist-types that discuss just what is and isn't possible in a series of past summer action blockbusters. They're really humble about it too - it's nice to see that it is still possible to be gracious about a movie even though it's violated your bullshit threshold. Here's a portion of their discussion of Spiderman's webslinging:
"There's also the web volume problem. A web strand would probably need to be at least 0.5 cm in diameter to support Spider-Man's web-swinging antics. If such a strand were 100 meters long, it would have a volume of 0.00196 m3 compared to Spider-Man's estimated volume of 0.0726 m3. Spider-Man will lose 2.7% of his volume every time he shoots a 100-meter-long web. Web swinging a mere kilometer of horizontal distance would use up 38% of his body volume (assuming his web makes a 45° angle with the vertical at the beginning and end of each swing and each web is 100 meters long). He would be skeletal by the time he arrived and would have to eat huge volumes of food to compensate."
So when someone comes along who actually does know what they're talking about, it's fun to listen to them. This website contains a series of articles written by informed physicist-types that discuss just what is and isn't possible in a series of past summer action blockbusters. They're really humble about it too - it's nice to see that it is still possible to be gracious about a movie even though it's violated your bullshit threshold. Here's a portion of their discussion of Spiderman's webslinging:
"There's also the web volume problem. A web strand would probably need to be at least 0.5 cm in diameter to support Spider-Man's web-swinging antics. If such a strand were 100 meters long, it would have a volume of 0.00196 m3 compared to Spider-Man's estimated volume of 0.0726 m3. Spider-Man will lose 2.7% of his volume every time he shoots a 100-meter-long web. Web swinging a mere kilometer of horizontal distance would use up 38% of his body volume (assuming his web makes a 45° angle with the vertical at the beginning and end of each swing and each web is 100 meters long). He would be skeletal by the time he arrived and would have to eat huge volumes of food to compensate."