MovieChat Forums > Oblivion (2013) Discussion > Moon blown up = destroyed earth?

Moon blown up = destroyed earth?


I enjoyed the movie for the most part, but as always, I have to nitpick on the science.

Why would blowing apart the moon cause so much damage on the earth? The tides are a function of the mass and distance of the moon, not the shape. Blowing up moon should not greatly affect the tides, etc. All the mass is still there, just moved around. It might affect the tides a tiny bit because the center of mass has moved, but not by much. Even if you could make the moon disappear, I'm not sure it would matter much, other than the lunar tide disappearing, leaving only the weaker solar tides. Tidal forces do affect the land of the earth, but only a few inches. If moving back and forth this much a couple times a day does not cause any damage, then not doing it should cause less. If I'm jumping on my bed and suddenly stop, the bed doesn't fly across the room and rip open.

I guess the destroyed moon was just a nice visual. It seems to me that having it rain down meteorites from the destroyed moon wreaking havoc would have made more sense. But really just a wave of those drones to wipe out everything first would have sufficed.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, the moon does affect things on Earth. But we understand them with physics (ignoring mystical mumbo jumbo.) Mainly the moon affects the earth through gravity. That is quantifiable and calculable. For example, we can calculate that right now the moon's is pulling on me about a thousandth of a pound of force. These things are mysteries, they are known things that can be calculated. We know what effect the gravity of the moon is and we can calculated it and even measure it to confirm it. We know what effect it has and so we can easily predict what would happen if it was gone. Unless we are assuming some mystery force that science hasn't found yet and for which there is no evidence, there is no reason to assume that there is some incredible danger. In fact, as the moon goes around the Earth, it's gravity varies greatly at any given point on the Earth's surface, pushing and pulling up and down. At some point, and any given point on or in the Earth (except for dead center) the net effect on any axis will twice a day be a net gravity of 0. The Earth does not explode when this happens.

I'm not saying things wouldn't change - certainly tides would greatly diminish - but there is no reason to assume that anything catastrophic would happen if the moon disappeared. No reason to assume violent earthquakes, volcanoes and floods to wipe out humanity.

Good science fiction does go beyond science. Sometimes if needs to fudge it a little. It shouldn't completely contradict settled science that has been understood for centuries.

reply

No one argues that the moon greatly affect tidal forces on the moon but I'm wondering would the loss of mass of the moon have much or any effect to the tectonic plates on Earth since cataclysmic earthquakes played a major part in changing the topography of Earth as explained in the movie?

reply

This is a great question because the film goes to some length to show that ALL life has been almost completely eradicated - not just humans.

There is increasing evidence that volcanic activity was necessary for Abiogenesis (and still is on the deep ocean floor) but, we don't yet know:

(1) how much activity over what period was needed to kick-start life
(2) if the moon played any role in increasing this activity

Even so, it's much less clear how destroying the moon (at this much later point in Earth's history, after organisms have already established themselves globally in abundance) would result in the extinction of most of the life on Earth, as earthquakes and tidal waves wouldn't do enough damage to achieve this!

One possible mechanism could be a food chain shock where plankton/algae at the bottom of the chain stop growing due to loss of tides leading to extinction of species further up the chain. However, this was not mentioned in the film and wouldn't result in the mass extinctions portrayed anyway.

As the OP pointed out I think this is a case of bad science in the name of artistic licence. A completely moonless sky is much less dramatic than portraying the wreckage of a shattered moon hanging there every night as an constant reminder of the recent cataclysm. Scientific accuracy aside, as a storytelling device, this picture is worth a thousand words! 

reply

[deleted]

Actually if plankton/algae disappear or die off in significant numbers the earth's biosphere will be impacted severely. Algae are the biggest converters of CO2 to oxygen and also reduce the acidity of the ocean from CO2 absorption in water. If no algae > acidic oceans and no life in ocean. Loss of life in ocean will eventually lead to mass extinction on land too.

reply

Oh man why can't linux based mobile platforms convert simple HTML characters over for us instead of showing us the garble. Can't apple just F==off and find a symmetrical balance with the rest of the universe and add an alternative to their proprietary BS, it really busts my sack, you dolts can't even use micro SD cards. Ironically you are probably using the new galaxy lol.

Alas, the moon... It seems if everything had not happened in the past, EXACTLY as it had happened before, including the actions of humans in my allegory, I would not be here to write this stupid post to annoy you. The big bang, moon, mercury, these are our barriers, wonder why the moon is so full of craters?

I think the science is sound about tsunamis and earthquakes. The moon is like the earths natural force field. It affects the tides a lot more than just a couple inches too friend, have you really never seen the ocean rise 15 feet then recede in a day? I thought this was just stuff most people got to see in real life.... Least read about. You wonder why, out of the trillions of stars and galaxies we haven't even found one, one potential. Sure they give us stories about "Titan" it's always Titan in these movies. The chance for atmospheric and environmental conditions to be even the least bit accommodating to our natural habitat would instantly make me believe that GOD did it, A GOD made another planet specifically for us to find and use. I am a theist if you really gotta label it but the probability of all the factors that have led us to being as we are happening twice is just as likely as an alternate universe.


I think the moon would remain in some sort of state in orbit around the earth if destroyed, depending on how it was destroyed, if a large chunk remained it would probably still orbit, not sure about all the bits and pieces, would they fall out of orbit into nothing or back down here?

reply

I think you meant to reply to the OP, not me?

reply

they never said the moon caused the destruction.

They sent down a army of jacks and drones and no telling what else/.
After that only a few humans left alive in pockets.
The destruction showed did not make sense, for only 60 years gone by.

http://tvtalk-your-show.forumotion.com/

reply

Oh well, I guess it's just one of those things that doesn't make sense.

I once heard that the difference between science fiction and science fantasy is that the former obeys the laws of physics and the latter doesn't have to. But even the best science fiction will usually have a few little things that just don't quite make sense in terms of physics. It's just for me this was a pretty glaring one.

Oh well. It was still a pretty enjoyable movie.

reply

[deleted]

Fiction means made up, not real. Simple as that.

reply

Brilliant

...then whoa, differences...

reply

We don't know how much of the moon's mass is left, so anything based on this issue is purely assumption. We don't know how a sudden shifting of large parts of the moon's mass would impact tides or magnetic fields...and it's pretty hard to do a real-world test. We have no idea how whatever impact such events did have would cascade in the short, or long term and, again, it's not really something we could do more than run sims on.

They didn't spend enough time on the surface to know what species survived but, since we have dogs and a lot of humans who look reasonably well fed, as well as one area with a high functioning ecosystem, the destruction clearly wasn't that total. Some areas are erased. Some look untouched. This makes a fair amount of sense in the context of the story.

It's not really that tough to make some rational leaps that maintain the willing suspension of disbelief.

reply

It occurs to me that while discussion of the Moon being destroyed usually focuses on things like tides and debris raining down on earth, a more serious possibility would be throwing the earth out of its current orbit.

The Moon doesn't actually orbit the Earth. Actually, the Earth and the Moon orbit around a common point known as the epicenter.

Given that the Moon is so large that the Moon and Earth represent a virtual double planet, the sudden destruction of the moon could very well send the Earth into an orbit further from, or closer to, the Sun, depending on where the Earth was in relation to its orbit around that epicenter. Since it would move tangentially away from that point, the end result is unknowable ... but it would be bad.

Very bad.

reply

Sure, only that the film opening scenes shows a destroyed moon with very little shift in the mass center of its fragments, compared to its original state.
The instant "message" to me from that scene was: This just isn't right, the bulk of the fragments would quickly fall back and reform the moon.
So, having entered "this just isn't right mood", I continued not taking the film seriously for the rest of its length. Which perhaps was the intention.



In Cod we trust.

reply

[deleted]

No bro, you're confusing the epicenter with Thai's Pentor. The Earth clearly orbits that shiz, cause it's the shizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzznit, and I'd orbit the shiznit if I was the Earth, wouldn't you? No worries bro, I get werds twisted sometimes too.

reply

they deleted pages 4-1xx on this forum, but this has been 'debated' ad nauseum.

I know, that's not an answer, but the only answer that makes sense is that one musn't "question" logically nor scientifically the premises presented in movies.

just go with it, sit back, and enjoy ...

reply

I don´t know ... It looked fantastic though. No doubt about that.

reply

well first of all why do you think the mass of the moon remained? maybe not much remained.
secondly we do not really know how much influence the moon has on the biosphere itself.

reply

[deleted]

don't think you can really tell from that vantage point what is there and what is not really. but yes on the oceans for sure. and regardless without the oceans there is not really much point for the moon anyway.

reply

A number of things in response:

There might be no life on Earth without the Moon or, if it did exist, it would be RADICALLY different from what we see today. It has done A LOT more than impact the tides. I won't go into the grim details because they are well detailed elsewhere and you can go and look them up if you're interested but:

1. The Moon was formed when a giant body crashed into the Earth. This had a number of effects, including changing the composition of the Earth. This change in composition was extremely important later in the forming of the various layers of the Earth. This and other effects were vital in the formation of life much later.

2. Afterwards the Moon helped to slow down the Earth's rotation. This is a different effect of the gravity of the Moon. If the Earth's rotation hadn't been slowed then it is unlikely that life would have formed and, if it did, thing would have been very different because the days would much shorter.

3. The Moon and it's gravity also helped to stabilise the 'wobble' of the Earth. This has a HUGE effect because it enabled the seasons to develop. Before the Moon existed the Earth's 'wobble' might have prevented life from forming, but it didn't life would be a lot different because, in combination with '2' above, the Moon basically stabilised the Earth enough to allow life as we know it. Without it life would unquestionably be radically different, if it existed at all. It's highly unlikely that humans - or intelligent life - would exist without the Moon because things like sewing crops and generally controlling the environment would be impossible on an Earth which had a severe 'wobble', no seasons, no tides, and an extremely quick rotation.

4. I think you are underestimating the importance of the tides. Once again I won't go into the grim details because they are available elsewhere, written by people who understand this much better than me, but the tides have had an enormous impact on things like land formation, the evolution of life in the ocean, life in the ocean moving onto land, the formation of fossil fuels. The list goes on and on and on.

5. As was noted by someone else above the Moon's gravity has also effected volcanoes, plate tectonics, and all sorts of other things.

Look ... I am not trying to argue with you, I am just suggesting that you go and have a look into it because a few years ago I discovered ho important the Moon was, and is, to life - and everything else - on Earth as we know it.

Now then ... you may well argue that all of the above is irrelevant to whether or not destroying the Moon now would destroy life on Earth. To this I reply:

1. I can't remember exactly what the Tom Cruise character said about what happened when the Moon was destroyed but you have to keep in mind that he is a clone who has been given a false story. We don't know what REALLY happened do we? For example he is told that there are radiation zones - because "we used the nukes" - but that turns out to be untrue. I'm just suggesting that the destruction of the Moon would certainly have an impact on us, the ocean, and our use of it, and that coupled with an alien invasion that would be enough for us to end up losing the way we did. It's possible that the alien is lying to him about the full effects that the destruction of the Moon had. In other words what he is told is not necessarily what happened and therefore what they say happened doesn't necessarily have to be feasible or true?

2. As per the above the tides are extremely important to a number of things, including the existence of life in the oceans and our 'farming' of them. A change in the Moon's gravity and a change to the tides would have drastic effects.

3. I don't think you're quite right about all the mass still being in roughly the same place and therefore not affecting the tides so much. All the little chunks of the Moon need to be together for the full gravitational effect to occur.

3. The gravity and the change to the tides would be continually changing because the chunks of the Moon would be unstable. There is one very large section of the Moon still and it would be having a gravitational effect on all the other chunks. If would be slowly 'sucking' them in and growing in mass and that would be changing the gravitational effect constantly.

4. We can see the Moon has been blown apart but we don't know what else has happened. For example if the orbit of the Moon has changed then that will have an enormous effect on tides and other things - as per all of the above - because the gravitational effect will be changed drastically.

I guess in the end I am saying that the Moon was extremely important to the evolution of life on Earth, that it continues to be very important to us in our day to day lives and existence, that a change to it would have drastic effects, that we don't know EXACTLY what changes were made when the Moon was destroyed in the movie so we don't know EXACTLY what the effects would be, but we can say that the changes, coupled with an alien invasion, could certainly be enough for us to end up the way we did in the movie. I think what is shown in the movie can be believed without having to completely suspend disbelief, especially when you consider that the story we are told is not necessarily exactly what happened; it is a story implanted in the clone's mind to explain the situation he is in and it isn't completely accurate because we know, for example, that the nukes weren't used after all. It's reasonable to assume that there are probably other inaccuracies in the story too...

That's my two cents worth anyway!

:-)

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

I think what is shown in the movie can be believed without having to completely suspend disbelief, especially when you consider that the story we are told is not necessarily exactly what happened; it is a story implanted in the clone's mind to explain the situation he is in and it isn't completely accurate because we know, for example, that the nukes weren't us

What annoyed me was that subtle narrative points drowned in the easy action driven scenes. For example, Andrea Riseborough did a great job portraying the increasing doubt stirring beneath the surface in Vika, right down to the explanation given in the flashback shot just before they entered the Tet. And then, all of a sudden the Vika character is just dropped, and we're left to an all in action and sweet ending.

In Cod we trust.

reply

I like that you did point out that our "knowledge" of the event is fabricated most likely.

Then it is a small leap to say that the destruction of the moon was due to an attack by Ming the Merciless and that the A.I. left behind to manage resources is a descendant of the robot/A.I. That ran the security on Mongol... :)

reply

many chunks of the Moon may have landed on the earth or in the oceans causing huge 500'+ tidal waves

reply

I think you hit the nail on the head seashellz. Scientists speculate the dinosaurs were obliterated and the iridium layer around the earth was formed by the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid, only about 170 Km in diameter. The Moon is 3474 Km in diameter. So a substantial chunk of the moon could have been broken off and struck the earth, possibly in an ocean, causing large scale damage to the land surface, while leaving the remnants of the moon still visible in the night sky as the movie portrays. The humans were mostly killed either in the war with the Tet or in the tsunamis. I don't think this movie's premise required as much suspension of disbelief as many of the posters here claim.

reply

You are not supposed to analyze too much about these kind of movies. If everyone were like you and questioned everything that doesn't seem hundred percent logical, we wouldn't have any interesting sci-fi movies at all. Long live imagination and free thinking! Death to the realists.

reply

Long live imagination and free thinking! Death to the realists



Okay, so you want to kill people who prefer reality to imagination? That's really sick.

Or maybe you just want to kill them in your imagination?

That's not as bad but still pretty sick. Why would you think such thoughts?

reply

Why do you put so much emphasis on an ironic phrase anyway?

After all, it is a movie. And if the makers wanted the destroyed moon to have an impact on earth's life, thats the way it is and we can discuss and speculate all day long and wouldn't come closer to any "truth" unless we witness it "live".

The reality you are refering to is a "Victoria", who immediately gets rid off the flower pot Jack gave her. Whilst the imagination we talk about is Jack's little hidden forest paradise at the lake.

Yes, prefering imagination above reality in that case. Death to realists!

reply

If an explosion shattered moon like presented in the movie, there'll surely be some big shards of moon blown out of orbit, and eventually, fall onto the surface of earth and cause big problems. Remember the Tunguska event? It's allegedly caused by a asteroid exploding in the sky. The energy of that event is about the combination of 300 atomic bombs. Imagine what would happen if part of moon fall off.

One thing for sure is that there won't be a shattered moon floating in the sky: parts of the moon will either come down or fall back to a sphere.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The moon reforming in 60 years is unlikely, it took 100s of millions if not billions of years to form the first time around. Chunks bounce off of each other for eons before settling and bonding, even with that fairly large chunk of moon left. The moon is light in comparison to Earth as it has no real core and low density, it has approx. one-sixth the gravity even though it is roughly one-quarter the size of the Earth because it is about 60% as dense as Earth. So the pull of a half or less sized chunk of the moon would be about 1/12th of Earth's gravitational pull, not much to pull everything back together very quickly at all....

Also, the moon is very far away, if the Earth were a volley ball, the moon would be a billiard ball 45 feet away, the odds of very much of it suddenly plummeting to Earth are very low, only the straight shot piece directly blown at perfect trajectory toward Earth might hit us but as we see, the bulk of the moon chunks don't seem to have travelled very far. Now if we imagine a billiard ball blowing up 45 feet away from a volley ball, how much of the billiard ball would hit the volley ball? Not much, even with the addition of gravity at play the low density chunks wouldn't vary far from their trajectory depending on velocity of course.

As to the apocalypse problem, we are never given all of the information, they blew up the moon and we are surprised that they could virtually destroy the Earth? The moon issue coupled with vast quantities of the ocean being sucked away might be enough but who's to say they didn't hit the earth with something similar to that which decimated the moon? The real conundrum is the fact that the seasons seem habitable as well as the atmosphere... this is improbable.

I would assume that the ocean sucking machines are after hydrogen (I could be totally wrong) if so then the amount of oxygen released back into the atmosphere would be devastating to most life especially plant-life and multi-cell organisms

The whole premise is great but a little silly, water and or hydrogen (especially hydrogen) are not hard to find and the over-elaborate ploy to use clones and whatnot seems complicated when they could have taken Europa with no resistance at all. Maybe it was the salt they needed, I'm not sure.

This movie is still very good IMO.


reply

An object on earth orbit has to stay in a very narrow range of speed, and the direction of the speed has to be exactly vertical to to the the direction which points to the center of earth. Any change in direction or quantity of speed of that object can easily lead to that object either spinning away from or pulling back to earth. Even though the initial change of speed may not be big, but under the influence of earth's gravitational pull, speed will accumulate very quickly, especially in space where there's no air to stop the accumulation. Imagine skydiving from 3,800,000 KM above earth, you'll know how much speed an object can accumulate, and multiply that speed again and half the mass of that shattered piece, that's about the energy released when hitting the ground.
According to Momentum Conservation Principle, if an explosion caused moon to shatter, any change in speed (either radial or tangential) will have a corresponding shattered piece going the opposite direction. It's very easy to see that some of these pieces will spin away from earth, some will fall back to earth. I can't imagine any explosion that can shatter the moon like illustrated in the movie, but the change of speed is insignificant enough to keep all or most pieces still in orbit.

reply