Talk:Clockstoppers

message: Attempting to analyze this movie according to relativity is, of course, flawed. But main reason that the comentary on relativity should be removed is that it is wrong. The comentary says "if an observer were going at very high speeds in relation to an observer going at much lower speeds..." but such a thing has no meaning in physics. If I move at high speed relative to you, then you are moving at high speeds relative to me. I will see your clocks slow down and you will see my clocks slow down. The kind of reasoning presented in this section of the article is simply wrong.
For more information on this topic, see the Wikipedia article on the Twin Paradox. That article explains the paradox and the resolution fairly well.
Anyways, there is no real way to analyze the physics of this movie other than to say that the idea is fairly absurd. The whole section should just be deleted it, so I hope nobody minds if I just delete it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.227.192 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comentary on relativity should be removed

message: What was the strong language? 153.42.168.136 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riker spews some filth regarding the female genitalia during his cameo. He is seemingly intoxicated. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During his cameo, one has to be watching carefully to even notice him in the background.  The only speaking that one can hear is the main characters in the foreground. — Val42 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong language?

message: :Image:Clockstoppers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Clockstoppers.jpg

message: in the movie, don't they hve the idea about he watch wrong? they are saying in the movie that if you move faster you age faster. But doesn't physics say that if you move faster, you age slower? can anyone help me out with this question  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabylon (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the underlying concept is that while in hypertime, a person is effectively using up more time than someone in normal time, because from the perspective of hypertime years seem to go by while a matter of hours passes in normal time. It's a logical idea, even if it doesn't play out that way in real world physics. But if you want to apply real world physics, any time a character collided with something while in hypertime should have caused them to splatter into chunks of gore and broken bone, since (normal human mass) times (velocity so high that cars on major roads appear to be standing still) equals (momentum much higher than that involved in a typical car crash).--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it just me? 

message: Why is this whole page in italics?  Also, I think guy before me has it right, physics says time passes relative to the speed you travel.  Classic example I'll always remember from physics class, I forget what the star was, but my teacher told me that if you traveled to and back from some star like 20 light years away at the speed of light the trip would take you about 4 months but when you returned to earth 40 years would've passed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.121.199 (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: This article mentions someone named Francesca without explaining anything about her. The first reference to her is "much to Francesca's amusement" -- so who the fuck is she? Is she important to the story? Is she perhaps a guardian angel sent by God to protect this youth? Is she a robot? Did the original poster leave out a few details? Did someone edit this article and remove detail to the point of stupidity? Just asking.
76.237.14.175 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who the fuck is Francesca??