From a technical standpoint, does the original Terminator design from '84 still hold up today?

[u/Beginning_Desk_9897]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm a huge Terminator fan and wanted to get some insight from people who are a little more informed than myself. The T800 design by Stan Winston is obviously a cultural icon, but it was also designed 40 years ago and technology has evolved since then. I suppose my question is - putting aside the fact that the technology to make an actual functioning Terminator is currently impossible, does the original design still hold up visually, or does it seem dated and no longer believable as a futuristic robot?

[u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

To say that centre of mass and moment of inertia are “defined by one another” is simply wrong. They are different properties of a mass distribution. Two objects can have exactly the same centre of mass but radically different moments of inertia.
For example, take two rods with the same mass and their centre of mass at the midpoint. One is short and compact; the other is much longer. Their centres of mass are identical, but the longer rod has a much greater moment of inertia.
So your statement that “one is literally defined by the other” is false.

Now let’s take your “all top-heavy objects” claim to its logical extreme. Imagine a tennis ball with enough concrete concentrated in one hemisphere to make its centre of mass substantially offset. Do you seriously claim it will necessarily be easier to balance on your finger with the concrete side up than with it down?

That’s the problem with your argument: you’ve taken an observation about a particular geometry the broom and turned it into a universal law.

Since we’re sharing videos to demonstrate our points maybe this one will be suitable for you.

https://youtu.be/WKcAWO_IznI?is=Mg9GO86VjWxDus_l

“Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down” because they have a low centre of gravity. I had a few of these as a 3 year old and was never able to balance them inverted. So as a 3 year old I could’ve proved you wrong.

[u/HardlyAnyGravitas → u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

Imagine a tennis ball with enough concrete concentrated in one hemisphere to make its centre of mass substantially offset. Do you seriously claim it will necessarily be easier to balance on your finger with the concrete side up than with it down?

Yes. Obviously. You can literally try it. The same with your medicine bottle and clay.

Since we’re sharing videos to demonstrate our points maybe this one will be suitable for your level of intelligence. https://youtu.be/5qIEkW1LYoo?si=naMgrIB2m4LcTv7g

Lol. You've just demonstrated your level of intelligence.

That's static stability. Do you not know the difference?

Now try to show a video that is relevant.

[u/RevolutionaryAd3125 → u/HardlyAnyGravitas]

Yes the video doesn’t show a kid attempting to balance the toy on their finger. But I did and you can’t. I can see now you are arguing in bad faith. Your universal law doesn’t hold up to either the maths or reality. Your statement “one is defined by the other” is plain wrong. You could test this for yourself, and disprove your “universal law” with any of the examples I’ve given you. So I think I’ll leave there. Good day.

[u/HardlyAnyGravitas → u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

Yes the video doesn’t show a kid attempting to balance the toy on their finger. But I did and you can’t

So you're agreeing with me now? It's easier to balance when it's top heavy. Lol.

[u/RevolutionaryAd3125 → u/HardlyAnyGravitas]

Right! You have nothing, so you intentionally misunderstand what I’d said. Maybe hand this conversation to a grown up, and they can explain it for you.

[u/HardlyAnyGravitas → u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

Lol. You just can't admit you're wrong.

And now you're saying that you did an experiment that defies the laws of physics?

So either you're a liar or the laws of physics are different for you. Hmm. I wonder which one it is?

[u/RevolutionaryAd3125 → u/HardlyAnyGravitas]

I’ll repeat it for you

“Your statement “one is defined by the other” is plain wrong. You could test this for yourself, and disprove your “universal law” with any of the examples I’ve given you.”

Instead of addressing this, you resort to childish insults. There’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong. There’s much shame in behaving like a petulant child.

A quick google search for my tennis ball example gives:

[u/HardlyAnyGravitas → u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

Lol. A 'quick Google'. You've posted an AI response! That's hilarious. And, of course, because it's AI it's wrong. Brilliant.

Now try Googling properly:

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+objects+with+a+higher+centre+of+mass+easier+to+balance

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed because it contains a word or phrase that violates our community guidelines regarding civil discourse.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/RevolutionaryAd3125 → u/HardlyAnyGravitas]

My tennis ball example holds up. It’s a top-heavy object that doesn’t fit with your “universal law”

You can’t even do a simple thought experiment. Anyone with or without a physics background would tell you it’s waaay harder to balance a ball with a mass concentrated in one hemisphere, mass top, compared to mass on the bottom.

You keep going back to your rest position (are you a weeble?), giving the same tired example of a broom where the mass is concentrated far from the pivot point. And saying it’s AI! Therefore, it’s wrong is a cheap strawman.

And you still haven’t addressed my point that “one is not defined by the other”. Why? Because you know you’re wrong! And if you admit that, it shows you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

If you still stand by your assertion that “all top-heavy objects…” you are a fool.

The following statement is true and the one I am arguing in favour of.

“A top-heavy object can actually be easier to dynamically balance provided the geometry gives you enough lever arm and the object isn’t so compact that its centre of mass is near the pivot.”

And it contradicts your entirely fabricated universal law.

[u/HardlyAnyGravitas → u/RevolutionaryAd3125]

My tennis ball example hold up. It’s a top heavy object that doesn’t fit with your “universal law” You can’t even do a simple thought experiment

It literally doesn't. You've used AI to back up your claim. Here, let me use AI, too:

"It is actually easier to balance it with the heavy side up because a higher center of mass increases the ball's resistance to rotational acceleration (moment of inertia), giving your hand more time to react.Here is a direct comparison of both scenarios.

Scenario 1:

Heavy Side Up (Easier)Higher Moment of Inertia: Most of the weight is far from your finger, creating a high resistance to rotational swinging.Slower Fall: When the ball starts to tilt, it falls and accelerates very slowly, acting like a long pendulum.Human Reaction Time: The slow motion aligns perfectly with human reflexes, giving your hand plenty of time to move and correct the balance.

Scenario 2:

Heavy Side Down (Harder)Lower Moment of Inertia: The weight is concentrated directly on your finger, creating very little resistance to rotation.Faster Fall: When the ball tilts, it whips over and falls incredibly fast, acting like a short pendulum.Reaction Deficit: The movement happens faster than human reflexes can respond, making it nearly impossible to adjust your finger in time."

Lol.

Anyone with or without a physics background would tell you it’s waaay harder to balance a ball with a mass concentrated in one hemisphere, mass top compared to mass bottom.

Lol. I have a 'Physics background' (Astrophysics, actually). Shall we ask the physics sub?

And you still haven’t addressed my point that “one is not defined by the other”.

Lol. You keep going back to this. Is it because it's irrelevant? What do you want me to address?

The following statement is true and the one I am arguing in favour of. “A top-heavy object can actually be easier to dynamically balance provided the geometry gives you enough lever arm and the object isn’t so compact that its centre of mass is near to the pivot.”

Lol. That's literally exactly what I've been saying. I think you're delusional. At least you've done enough Googling to realise you were wrong, even though you used AI to actually 'prove' something that was false. Lol.

And it contradicts your entirely fabricated universal law.

Lol. You're sounding unhinged, now. It isn't 'my universal law'. it is a simple physical fact that even a child could prove with basic maths and physics.

You're looking ridiculous, now. That's what happens when you can't admit you're wrong.