Can the Invisible Man Reboot Exceed the Success of Kevin Bacon's Hollow Man?

[new6ton]

The reboot of Invisible Man will be shown next year:

https://comicbook.com/horror/2019/08/22/invisible-man-reboot-remake-release-date-change-blumhouse/
Isn't this the same as Kevin Bacon Hollow Man?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164052/
I found Hollow Man so good. I wonder if it can even equal or exceed it?

Both involve injecting special drugs into the body which can change the molecular structure. So I'd like to ask something about colors:

We know that we see colors because it is reflected light. All other color wavelength absorbed. In black, everything is absorbed. In white. All is reflected:

Now in the science fiction about invisibility. They can only make it invisible if the electronic transition won't correspond to the color wavelength. So in the science fiction world. The drugs can alter the electrons that can make it not able to respond to colors? Would this make things invisible. What do you think? If the drugs can alter the electrons, this would make objects bigger, how else would it be affected? Please let me know so when I watch rerun of Hollow Man tonight. I'd think of it.

 

[phinds]

Altering electrons or atoms so that they "don't respond to colors" is not science fiction, it is fantasy. Actual sort-of invisibility of a very limited degree is already available but not by altering an object's matter but rather by getting light rays to move around macroscopic objects. It is not unthinkable that in the fairly distant future an "invisibility cloak" could possibly become a reality.

 

[new6ton]

Altering electrons or atoms so that they "don't respond to colors" is not science fiction, it is fantasy. Actual sort-of invisibility of a very limited degree is already available but not by altering an object's matter but rather by getting light rays to move around macroscopic objects. It is no unthinkable that in the fairly distant future an "invisibility cloak" could possibly become a reality.

What is the difference between science fiction and fantasy. Is it not science fiction is fantasy?

So what fantasy way of altering atoms so they don't respond to the wavelength of colors? If the mass of the electron is increased and the orbital changed, would this do? Or the electron turned into dark matter? etc. Remember it's fantasy or science fiction for fun where imagination knows no limit.

So please give some ideas. I am also acquiring Hollow Man part II (2006) so I have over 4 hours of fun to watch this weekend.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hollow Man really irritated me for so much that it missed out on. It lived in a protected sandbox of its own creation.
The entire thing took place inside one building (it was like a particle accelerator plant wasn't it?).

A story about an invisible man is obliged to show the possibilities and consequences of being invisible and roaming freely in the world where no one can stop you doing whatever you want. The theme has broad society-wide consequences to us, leaving us cringing in our homes, afraid to open the door. It is a game changer.

Instead, they made it into little more than a scary 'monster in the museum' story. 'It's loose, and it's angry. Find it and kill it before it kills us.'

 

[profbuxton]

Always wondered how it would be to be really invisible? Would your clothes be invisible too or would you be naked?
How would you carry anything since any object you carry would be visible. What about footprints or being in a rain storm or fog? If people suspected you were around they could dust you with flour or spray you with a CO2 extinguisher.
You would have to very careful not to get into close quarters(lifts etc). Could be a problem if someone grabbed you by accident! If you got cut would your blood become visible? Or what if you ate something?

 

[member 656954]

Always wondered how it would be to be really invisible?

And how would you see anything? If photons go through or around our eyes, we'd be blind. Like many sci-fi ideas, being invisible does not stand up to much scrutiny

 

[Vanadium 50]

If your pupils were 99% transparent you'd see just fine, but you'd still be pretty doggone invisible.

 

[Vanadium 50]

People keep saying that Claude Rains really made that role, but I dunno. I could never really see him in that part.

 

[new6ton]

And how would you see anything? If photons go through or around our eyes, we'd be blind. Like many sci-fi ideas, being invisible does not stand up to much scrutiny

When Maxwell discovered electromagnetism, he never imagined satellites or wifi. So let's start with the most basic first.

Atoms are mostly empty. And if certain wavelengths can only be transmitted and not reflected or absorbed. It would be invisible.

So if you can magically make the electrons disobey transition to excited states from certain wavelengths (visible light), you can really make a spoon become invisible, correct (someone please answer in the affirmative or negative)?

The caveat is "magically" and sci-fily speaking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Always wondered how it would be to be really invisible? Would your clothes be invisible too or would you be naked?
How would you carry anything since any object you carry would be visible. What about footprints or being in a rain storm or fog? If people suspected you were around they could dust you with flour or spray you with a CO2 extinguisher.
You would have to very careful not to get into close quarters(lifts etc). Could be a problem if someone grabbed you by accident! If you got cut would your blood become visible? Or what if you ate something?

More recent than the Claude Raines original, Chevy Chase's Memoirs of an Invisible Man explores many of these concepts in a humorous way.

 

[member 656954]

If your pupils were 99% transparent you'd see just fine, but you'd still be pretty doggone invisible.

Reduce light levels 99% and you're essentially blind, right, which seems equivalent to what you are saying?

Or are you saying that you're only 99% invisible? Or that your eyes somehow are not fully invisible?

I'm missing how invisible retinas can gather photons.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Reduce light levels 99% and you're essentially blind, right, which seems equivalent to what you are saying?

Just the opposite. Unless you're already in a dark room (in which case invisibility doesn't do you much good), you could see fine with a 99% reduction in light. That would turn bright sunlight into overcast, or a typical office into twilight.

However, our eyes would have trouble with spotting a few millimeter sized object (or, in our case, pairs of objects) that is 1% less transparent than the surrounding air, especially if we didn't already know where to look.

In fact, maybe 90% is enough.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a little trickier than that.

In order to receive a decipherable image on the retina, your eyes have to

1. ...block light coming from all other directions except through the pupil. Without this, the retina will be stimulated by any and all light from anywhere. And none of it is focused.

1a. Worse, the pupil's area is only about 1.5% of the surface area of the eyeball, so if the eyeball were invisible, the retina would be receiving about 66 times more light than normal - (and you can't count on the pupil to contract in bright light, like it normally does.) You would be blind and in searing pain.

3. ...refract the light through your corneas (and lenses) to make a focused image on the retina.So most of your eye parts need to interact with photons (making them visible) in order to do their job.

 

[new6ton]

22 minutes into the main movie, this was the conversation:

Bacon: "Four years ago, this commitee gave me a very specific and challenging task, to successfully phase shift out of quantum shift with the visible universe".

So it's not supressing electrons from transition to excited states corresponding to color wavelengths. Instead, it's similar to how many worlds or multiverse can co-exist?

What does "phase-shift" mean in science-fiction? What first used it?
e.

Can't you call how Many Worlds or Multiverse do the trick also "phase-shift"?

 

[phinds]

Bacon: "Four years ago, this commitee gave me a very specific and challenging task, to successfully phase shift out of quantum shift with the visible universe".

gobbledegook

So it's not supressing electrons from transition to excited states corresponding to color wavelengths. Instead, it's similar to how many worlds or multiverse can co-exist?

but they don't "co-exist" in the sense that there can be any causal relationship between them

What does "phase-shift" mean in science-fiction? What first used it?

it means whatever a particular author wants it to mean.

I met a woman more than 15 years ago who had seen a person just vanishing in front of her.

And I'd like to talk to her about a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm putting up for sale

Maybe this is "phase-shift" rather than supressing electrons?

Or maybe it didn't happen or has some more logical explanation.

All over the world. Many experience seeing things that vanish into thin air. Or they could be hallucinations of course and too much wine.

Good. More candidates for my bridge sale.

Can't you call how Many Worlds or Multiverse do the trick also "phase-shift"?

You can call it anything you like but if it implies a causal relationship between different universes, it's a non-starter.

 

[new6ton]

gobbledegook

but they don't "co-exist" in the sense that there can be any causal relationship between them

it means whatever a particular author wants it to mean.

And I'd like to talk to her about a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm putting up for saleOr maybe it didn't happen or has some more logical explanation.

Never mind.

Good. More candidates for my bridge sale.

You can call it anything you like but if it implies a causal relationship between different universes, it's a non-starter.

Please see message below about this causal relationship or quantum state unitarity (you are referring to this right?)

 

[WWGD]

But would light rays refract within a single medium or would they just go through the invisible man?

 

[new6ton]

But would light rays refract within a single medium or would they just go through the invisible man?

Yeah, good question.

 

[shockme]

If an object did not reflect light, wouldn’t it be invisible to us?

 

[jbriggs444]

If an object did not reflect light, wouldn’t it be invisible to us?

Silhouette.

 

[member 656954]

Silhouette.

That's an interesting thought for an Invisible Man. Clearly, the light has to pass through, from any angle, the person or yeah, they'll be a silhouette. Which would be freaky, but not as fun as properly invisible.

Speaking of, I watched Die Another Day recently, one of the puff-piece James Bond movies, and Q's headline gadget was the 'invisible' Aston Martin. Having worked with a guy who owned a Vanquish, I know that even when you can't see them, you can hear them, and it occurs that while our eyes provide a lot of input, just being invisible does not make you silent or eliminate your scent or hide your IR signature or make you weightless.

The more I think about it, the more being invisible seems less a superpower and more a pain the neck!

Here is the invisible Aston Martin, conveniently rendered in fuzzy outline for us viewers! Note the tire marks in the snow, hard to miss them appearing, even if you weren't looking for the car...

 

[new6ton]

I don't know if physical invisibility (yet still touchable) is possible. All I know is that invisibility makes you phase shift (maybe string vacua convert) into the neo-ether as well. I had this book I got once called "Invisibility: Mastering the Art of Vanishing". Is this story about Apollonius of Tyana true?

The most interesting of these centre around Apollonius of Tyana, a
first-century Greek sage who visited India in the company of his disciple,
Damis. Quoting from Damis' diaries, Philostratus tells us that the pair
discovered a Brahman monastery which was situated on a hill of about the
same size and elevation as that which supported the Acropolis in Athens.
He also says that 'they saw a cloud floating round the eminence on which
the Indians live', and that by its means 'they render themselves visible or
invisible'. They were unable to determine 'whether there were any other
gates to the eminence . . . for the cloud around it did not allow [the gates]
anywhere to be seen, whether there was an opening in the rampart, or
whether on the other hand it was a close-shut fortress.' Thomas Vaughan
compares this with the House Sanctus Spiritus of the Rosicrucians. It was
obviously a suitable place for the meeting of high Adepts, and it appears
from Philostratus and Apollonius was taught the secret of the cloud's
formation, because on his return to the West he demonstrated the power
himself.
The Emperor Domitian had Apollonius arrested, as tyrants are
wont to do, and demanded that he appear before the imperial court to
answer a long series of trumped-up charges. An absurd trial followed, at
which the magician defended himself, and when it became obvious to
even Apollonius that the whole thing was farce, he quoted a verse from the
Iliad in which he announced that he was not mortal, and 'vanished from
the court'.
The emperor was of course astonished, as well he might have been,
but even more astonished were Apollonius' disciples. For one hour after he
vanished from Domitian's court, Apollonius appeared to them at the grotto
of Puteoli, a journey of several days distance.

 

[member 656954]

Is this story about Apollonius of Tyana true?

Possibly it's an accurate representation of the story, but nothing we can measure about the universe supports a literal interpretation of mystics using some kind of cloud to willfully render themselves visible and invisible, or being able to teleport, in the way you are asking about.

Sadly, our universe evidently does not support these types of sci-fi (or fantasy) concepts, thus they remain fruitful story ideas and not real-world engineering outcomes.

 

[new6ton]

Possibly it's an accurate representation of the story, but nothing we can measure about the universe supports a literal interpretation of mystics using some kind of cloud to willfully render themselves visible and invisible, or being able to teleport, in the way you are asking about.

Sadly, our universe evidently does not support these types of sci-fi (or fantasy) concepts, thus they remain fruitful story ideas and not real-world engineering outcomes.

Of course the cloud doesn't mean the one you see in the sky. Here's the reference about the cloud in the same book (I won't quote other passages, readers can just find the book in the public library):

This is undoubtedly the correct interpretation, and it is particularly
interesting because it lends support to the theory that Apollonius vanished
by means of the cloud. As I pointed out in chapter three, the Hindu Akasa
is the equivalent of the alchemist's First Matter, and is therefore the
material of which the cloud is composed. Madame Blavatsky's assertion
that Apollonius' body became invisible 'by the concentration of Akasa
about it' could therefore have been lifted straight out of some medieval
Rosicrucian manuscript, with the alteration of a single word — Akasa. But
it was not. In fact, it was lifted out of a medieval Indian manuscript —
Vyasa's commentary on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.

In Book Three of the Yoga Sutras, Patanjali discusses the various
Siddhis, or occult powers, that come to the advanced Yogi through the
practice of Sanyama. In Sutras forty-three and forty-four we are told that
subjugation of the Five Elements or Tattwas comes from using them as an
object. The Yogi can plunge into the Earth as if it were mere Water; he
may enter a stone if he wishes; the waters do not wet him; fire does not
burn him; and, most of all 'the Akasa, which by its very nature covers
nothing, will cover him so perfectly that even the Siddhas may not see
him.' This is an obvious reference to the cloud, albeit a carefully veiled
one, and upon reflection we can see that H. Spencer Lewis' technique for
forming the cloud may just be an ingenious interpretation of Vyasa's
commentary.

Maybe fantasy. If not. But these are presently closely guarded because of the present conditions of the world where war is the more normal inclination of humanity.

 

[member 656954]

But these are presently closely guarded because of the present conditions of the world where war is the more normal inclination of humanity.

Tosh. We'll never agree on some global conspiracy by the Illuminati or whoever, I don't even find sci-fi with such motivations that compelling. You can't hide aspects of the world that are amiable to the scientific method!

 

[new6ton]

Tosh. We'll never agree on some global conspiracy by the Illuminati or whoever, I don't even find sci-fi with such motivations that compelling. You can't hide aspects of the world that are amiable to the scientific method!

Here is how it works. The fundamental forces can only be controlled or accessed by consciousness. Since we are just scratching the surface and don't even have a science of consciousness. This is the reason it is not so amiable to the current scientific method. You understand?

 

[fresh_42]

Here is how it works. The fundamental forces can only be controlled or accessed by consciousness.

There is no reasonable context within this would be a reasonable statement. I'm quite happy that I can rely on the electromagnetic forces while I'm unconscious.

Since we are just scratching the surface and don't even have a science of consciousness.

Yes, we do. We call it neurology.

This is the reason it is not so amiable to the current scientific method. You understand?

No.

Please stay within the discussion of science fiction. Even in this forum we like to have sources. The difference is only, that it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed. The invisible man is such a source, but consciousness is not covered by it.

 

[new6ton]

There is no reasonable context within this would be a reasonable statement. I'm quite happy that I can rely on the electromagnetic forces while I'm unconscious.

Yes, we do. We call it neurology.

No.

Please stay within the discussion of science fiction. Even in this forum we like to have sources. The difference is only, that it doesn't have to be peer-reviewed. The invisible man is such a source, but consciousness is not covered by it.

Source/Reference: Ghost in the Shell 1995 movie. Got this conversation inside from the *.srt file

"336
00:38:11,520 --> 00:38:15,410
...he'd just run down a naked lady wandering
around on the highway.

Which brings us to here.

I've heard Megatech Body's tied pretty closely
to the government...

...and that all the shells
made there are secret.

If a hacker did this,
he had to swim through...

...some of the heaviest protection around.

And that isn't the only problem.

Of course, it doesn't have
an organic brain in its head...

...but we've detected
what looks like a ghost...

...in the auxiliary computer brain.

It isn't unlike
the virtual ghost-line you get...

...when a real ghost is dubbed off.

But it shows none of the data degradation
dubbing would produce.

Well, until we map the barrier perimeter
and dive in there...

...we won't know anything for sure.

(snipped.. conversation contiues)

...and I'm a replicant
made with a cyborg body and computer brain.

Or maybe there never was
a real "me" to begin with.

You've got real brain matter
in that titanium skull of yours.

And you get treated like
a real person, don't you?

There's no person
who's ever seen their own brain.

I believe I exist based only
on what my environment tells me.

Don't you believe in your own ghost?

And what if a computer brain
could generate a ghost...

...and harbor a soul?"

------------------------
Back to reality. Neurology is good. But somehow the neurons are connected to our "ghost". Or true AI who can think like us can only occur if it's connected to a "ghost". The "ghost" science is something that belongs to the future. But we can manipulate our ghost even without understanding the science.

About that movie Ghost in the Shell 1995. What does auxiliary brain mean? and "ghost-line"? (I gave reference :) ) Btw.. this is what made the original cartoon movie so beloved with over 80% Tomato rotten score. This is because people have intuition. In the Scarlett version, there is no mentioned of ghost-line. It's all neurons, and much lower rotten tomato score because people have intuition to feel it's missing someting.

 

[new6ton]

I added the missing movie conversation which was deleted which I hit "Post Reply".

 

[member 656954]

It's all neurons, and much lower rotten tomato score because people have intuition to feel it's missing someting.

It was missing something, but I disagree that had anything to do with whatever a "ghost line" is. I think bronsencollins put it best in the their review:

"This money seeking product has been homogenized, pasteurized and sterilized by the Hollywood Lack of Originality Machine for the pickpocketing of the stupid. The end result is a product that is totally Americanized without any Japanese nutritional value but it contains a Japanese mother nonetheless. Acting ability is not a requirement."

No intuition required, you can watch Scarlett make a mishmash of the content because the filmmakers put special effects ahead of plot.

Source/Reference: Ghost in the Shell 1995 movie. Got this conversation inside from the *.srt file

I don't think that's what @fresh_42 meant by source, but even if so, quoting science fiction movie scripts does not automatically make something true.

 

[new6ton]

It was missing something, but I disagree that had anything to do with whatever a "ghost line" is. I think bronsencollins put it best in the their review:

"This money seeking product has been homogenized, pasteurized and sterilized by the Hollywood Lack of Originality Machine for the pickpocketing of the stupid. The end result is a product that is totally Americanized without any Japanese nutritional value but it contains a Japanese mother nonetheless. Acting ability is not a requirement."

No intuition required, you can watch Scarlett make a mishmash of the content because the filmmakers put special effects ahead of plot.
I don't think that's what @fresh_42 meant by source, but even if so, quoting science fiction movie scripts does not automatically make something true.

Why is it so hard to believe there is non-physical extension to the brain?
Bohm Implicate Order - Mind
Bohm Explicate Order - Neural network - Brain

What's wrong with the above?

To be on topic.

1. In Hollowman, does anyone think the invisibility drugs made Sebastian (Bacon) crazy? I think he was just driven the edge. His former ex was someone he still adored who was the partner of his colleague, and he was about to be exposed. Others may do the same without drug induced mental illnesses.

2. The Joke about Superman and Wonder Woman and Invisible Man's assess. Was this an original joke in the movie?

3. Spoiler. Do no proceed if someone hasn't seen the movie yet.

What chemicals was that mixed in the test tube that exploded when it was centerfuged. Are there something like these?

 

[some bloke]

In so far as making something invisible, would it not be largely down to perspective?

To us, air is invisible, as we can see through it. To an x-ray machine, flesh is mostly invisible, but bones are not.

Am I right in thinking that the spectrum in which you view things (the Visible Light of the observer) is crucial to this?

EG the mantis shrimp can see in a wider scale than us, they say, due to having much more receptive eyes. to them, air (or water, in their case) might not be invisible, as they can see the heat being radiated from warm patches of it.

Not sure how you'd go the other way - giving a material a diffractive index of air (or whatever medium it is in) to render it invisible. It's like those gel balls in water - they are practically invisible, if they are in water.

 

[new6ton]

In so far as making something invisible, would it not be largely down to perspective?

To us, air is invisible, as we can see through it. To an x-ray machine, flesh is mostly invisible, but bones are not.

Am I right in thinking that the spectrum in which you view things (the Visible Light of the observer) is crucial to this?

EG the mantis shrimp can see in a wider scale than us, they say, due to having much more receptive eyes. to them, air (or water, in their case) might not be invisible, as they can see the heat being radiated from warm patches of it.

Not sure how you'd go the other way - giving a material a diffractive index of air (or whatever medium it is in) to render it invisible. It's like those gel balls in water - they are practically invisible, if they are in water.

How about very little mirrors (nano mirrors?) where the light is move around the jacket? Can't this be done? This won't produce invisibility but would make the light rays bend around the object merging it with the background (like grass).

 

[member 656954]

Why is it so hard to believe there is non-physical extension to the brain?
Bohm Implicate Order - Mind
Bohm Explicate Order - Neural network - Brain

What's wrong with the above?

It's perhaps not as off-topic as you might think, as this is conceptually as invisible as the Invisible Man reboot that prompted the whole discussion.

But more seriously, this is one interpretation of quantum behavior and as far as I'm aware, has not been shown to be the interpretation. Bohm's holomovement, plenum, multidimensional reality, Subtle Nonmanifest, and the rest, is philosophy not science.

 

[new6ton]

It's perhaps not as off-topic as you might think, as this is conceptually as invisible as the Invisible Man reboot that prompted the whole discussion.

But more seriously, this is one interpretation of quantum behavior and as far as I'm aware, has not been shown to be the interpretation. Bohm's holomovement, plenum, multidimensional reality, Subtle Nonmanifest, and the rest, is philosophy not science.

It's not philosophy but simply lack of scientific theory.
To be part of reality. Something has to be

1. Applied consistently
2. Experiments and repetitions
3. Science Theory

We don't have the third only. In China and Taiwan and other countries. We can put non-physical spirit into a person and remove it at will and consistently. Enough to support 1. Applied consistently and 2. Experiments and repetitions. Even Scott Peck who wrote the famous The Road Less Travelled has known it and wrote the book "A Psychiatrist Personal Account of Possession, Exorcism and Redemption". We just don't have the scientific theory, hence it is not philosophy.

The world would advance a century into the future if we can understand the physics of it. And many ailments and mental disorders can be cured. This is because for the neural network out of order there is a corresponding disorder in the non-physical part. Right now we can treat the non-physical part and many millions can benefit from it immediately. But most can't avail of it because scientists discourage the study and even mention of it with their head just looking up and eyes rolling from left and right. Just think that it can benefit your love ones too in the future when they need this. Therefore my appeal to scientists is not to ignore it simply because it is not part of the standard model.

There is hope though. One can go to Michio Kaku and let him be possessed and I think he would share to the entire physics community this thing and it will change everything. Perhaps the last hope.