'moon breakup'....WTF????


So...the big global catastrophe is a "moon breakup", apparently from doing some mining with nukes on the moon. Is this the best the writers could come up with?

Apparently they have zilch scientific literacy. The moon has survived collisions with miles wide asteroids, that make a nuclear bomb look like a firecracker, and has come out of it just fine.

From the mess of the entire story in this movie, one strongly suspects that there were plenty of re-writes on the screenplay by several persons before finally making it to the screen.

reply

[deleted]

So many impossibilities, yet none that you mention has to do with time travel?

The Moon has very little affect on the seasons. The seasons are due to the tilt of the Earth.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

[deleted]

Um, you do know that the moon's magnetic field is extremely unstable and irregular, don't you?

And it's nowhere near powerful enough to affect the tilt of the earth, not even if the earth were solid iron (which it isn't).

Those are facts.

The thing you're aiming for is not magnetism - it's GRAVITY!!! Yes, remove the moon, and you have a drastic effect on earth's seasons, but it's not because the magnetic field stabilizes us. It's because of two things: 1) The moon's gravity contributes to the stability of the earth's axial tile (which isn't even actually that stable), but that's not the more important of the two reasons. 2) The more important reason is that the moon's gravity is the primary cause of the tides.

In short, in the moon's absence, our ocean currents would be seriously affected (primarily reduced), and that would totally throw a wrench in the regulation of several climate zones, the deregulation of those climate zones eventually leading to the deregulation of all climate zones.

Those are facts. And I'm not even an astronomer or meteorologist. I just paid attention in high school.

reply

Magnetic effect of the moon? I am afraid you are confused. The Moon does not have a magnetic field as to affect Earth. The main effect of the Moon on Earth is its gravity.

reply


*effect
















'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

Fell bettar? Iph u pull hte kork owt' euwll fell evan gooder.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

Yes. Much. And thank you for asking.




'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

reply

[deleted]

I take it you're an Atheist?

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

reply

[deleted]

You don't know the rules about paragraphing text; every single sentence you write you're formatting as a separate paragraph, in violation of the rules of grammar.

reply

[deleted]

True. But atheism doesn't mean you know for sure there is no god. It simply means you not a theist i.e. you don't believe in a supernatural deity.

Still, not to argue over semantics, I agree that no one can conclude with 100% certainty god doesn't exist and on flip side, no one should be able to say with 100% certainty god does exist.

So on a scale from left to right, we're all closer to one side (god doesn't exist) or other (god exists).

Agnostics are not on this scale because they are indifferent to either position.

reply

We are so lucky and we don't even appreciate it.

Ain't that the truth. You have no idea how much Christianity (and I imagine any other major religion) helps a modern American realize that. Understanding how unlikely it is for a planet to inhabit life certainly helps as well. By saying the God of Christianity or any god waves a magic wand is simplifying the concept of God, and yes, that is foolishness. God or whatever entity created the universe would have to be far more complex than any of us could possibly imagine. The stereotypical view of God being some man with a beard in the sky waving his magic wand is very narrow-minded. Christians, and I imagine any theistic people, have many different views on the topic of science- some dumb, some smart, some in between, and others apathetic. There are also agnostics such as yourself. And there are so many different definitions of what agnosticism is.


I loved the movie as an eighth grader. I haven't seen it since probably high school. Considering how much of a movie snob I've become since then, I probably wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as I used to, although I do still think Guy Pierce is a great actor. Even in eighth grade, I remember realizing how far fetched the idea of the moon breaking up was. I was into writing science fiction at the time, and I remember thinking I would have come up with a better catastrophe. You don't even need to be a sci-fi writer to come up with a better one. Wasn't there some kind of nuclear holocaust instead in the old movie?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't understand how you Atheists and Agnostics can be so Nihilistic about everything.

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

reply

[deleted]

lol if we're so good to one another then why is there so much cruelty in the world?And another thing what are your moral standards based on if not religion?

You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan

reply

Answer: Cruelty comes largely from fear-based superstitions like religious beliefs and other forms of irrationality.

As for what moral standards are based upon if not religion: MSStMarie already answered that. Re-read.

reply

[deleted]

atheist or not, religion started the whole morality thing, if it was not for that; there would not have been such a standard to follow and work together with to reach to this point. it might not be perfect, but it got us this far, to band together and morally all have a line we can't cross. it even helped with hygiene.

reply

It's a popcorn flick people, not rocket surgery.

· · · ><))º>



· · ·· ><)))º> · · · ><))º>


reply

Except for the fact that morality existed long before religion existed. Morality is defined by actions that conform to ideas of "right", it is not defined by laws written by humans. Actions that could be classified as "right" or "wrong" existed long before humans were capable of language to classify them. I would point out that humanity probobly wouldn't have survived to the point they were capable of language, much less to the point they could attempt to explain the world around them, if morality did not exist. Moreover, other animals with absolutely no concept of religion [Dolphins, Primates, Etc] also exhibit moral behavior [self sacrifice, love, altruism, etc]. Giving specific kinds of behaviour a label does not make it religious in either origin or enterprise.
.´¯)
<<·´¯) / / .¤{[ Amra ]}
/ / `-´
`-´

reply

Except for the fact that morality existed long before religion existed.


And God existed before religion (and dolphins whom were created also) existed. :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

On the contrary, there is GREAT meaning in life, and the greatest is our ability to be good to one another.


Why is that so great or meaningful?

reply

[deleted]

I am puzzled. If the moon breaks up, would we get the debris? I thought the moon had its own gravity force to keep everything on it. I am also wondering how did the time machine remained intact through the first travel to the future so we could ''witness'' the changes around it. Everything changed around it but the machine was never moved, vandalized or destroyed. Was it not actually there? Maybe we could see it but nobody else did? Then, after stopping the machine randomly after waking in 802 something, how did the machine ''knew'' exactly what time it was? The machine stopped first and then the date fell like a slot machine...

reply

you misunderstand gravity. the moon is not held in space a particular distance from the earth by some weird "gravity point" that keeps it that far away. the earth's gravity keeps trying to pull the moon toward the earth's center, but the moon is traveling fast enough through space that the earth's gravity can't do any more than cause it to orbit. change the moon's mass seriously enough, you might change things so that the earth's gravity was finally enough to cause the moon to fall. whether it broke up or not on the way would depend on what happened to it while it was entering the earth's atmosphere. the block of stuff that makes up the moon is held together by its own gravity, sure, but the friction force cause by re-entry could be enough to overcome it (depending on how much of the moon was falling), and then it would break. gravity is just one of many forces.

reply

[deleted]

the moon is not held in space a particular distance from the earth by some weird "gravity point" that keeps it that far away. the earth's gravity keeps trying to pull the moon toward the earth's center, but the moon is traveling fast enough through space that the earth's gravity can't do any more than cause it to orbit. change the moon's mass seriously enough, you might change things so that the earth's gravity was finally enough to cause the moon to fall.


First of all, sorry for responding to a months-old post.

I think you might have been wrong to correct pv61. I think pv61 was pointing out the problem I have in science-fiction whenever a planet-scale body (like the Moon) explodes, unless the story gives a nod to the real scale of energy it would take for some or all of the chunks of the body to reach escape velocity and not just fall back toward the center of gravity. The problem isn't that a "weird 'gravity point'" would keep the chunks away from Earth, but how powerful the explosions would have to be to make the chunks escape the Moon. As others on this board have pointed out, nukes aren't that powerful.

And this may not really alter your point, but I find the way you put it misleading. Changing the Moon's mass, in and of itself, shouldn't affect its orbit. Remember how Galileo found that falling bodies of different mass fall at the same rate? And escape velocity is the same no matter how great the mass being launched. And the Moon would orbit pretty much the same way no matter its mass. Earth might wobble differently around a new center of gravity in the Earth-Moon system (particularly if the Moon increases its mass enough), but decreasing the Moon's mass isn't going to increase the effect of Earth's gravity so it falls. The effect of Earth's gravity is proportional to whatever mass is up there, so a body of whatever mass (until it crosses some line between Moon-mass and Earth-mass) could orbit the same way at the same speed (cross that line, and you end up with an Earth-Moon center of gravity outside the Earth, and then, while the Moon's orbit is much the same, Earth is orbiting the center of gravity as well).

Possibly you meant "change the moon's mass" to refer to the other mechanics of blowing the Moon apart (again, assuming explosions powerful enough). The explosions would give each chunk of the moon, big or small, a new arc to trace through Earth's gravitational field, so they would end up in altered orbits, or fall to Earth, or fly free.

reply

If they were mining the explosion would be in the inside so that's plausible plus it's in space with no atmosphere.

reply

From reading the first few comments in this thread I have decided that this is a movie I will not see. I believe if I do see it I will be setting there most of the time groaning and rolling my eyes. Life is too short to waste your time watching a movie you hate.

reply

The nuke changed the orbit of the moon, moving it closer, that is what caused the breakup.

reply

just imagine there was a line that said "they had mined out the moon beyond what it could handle, and that last blast put it over the edge"

huzzah, now you can get over it. there's a time traveler, an 800,000 year old hologram, a group of humans that evolved to basically be man-eating ants, and a bunch of tribesman learned perfect english from surviving scraps of signs in new york.

suspension of disbelief was implied.

reply