Moons Orbital decline or moving away

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,469
we_are_borg

Oh gawd, I watched that movie on TV the other day. It was the most enjoyable leave-your-brain-at-the-door scientific bunk I'd seen in a long time. Facepalms came thick and fast at some points. :ROFLMAO:

So true! I believe this exists for most sci-fi. We suspend belief in order to enjoy the story.

Take a sci-fi masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey, which tried to be as accurate as possible to the point of complete silence in spaceship scenes. Brilliant movie, that could put a person to sleep!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTL

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,704
And the sad fact is that the accuracy of that movie lead people to believe Kubrick filmed the moon landings on a sound stage.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,704
Well, where else would they have filmed them?
I'd have filmed moon shots on location - on the moon. Could even send Kubrick to make sure the shots were *good*, but if you're going to do it, do it as authentically as possible.
 

FTL

Adherent
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
371
I'd have filmed moon shots on location - on the moon. Could even send Kubrick to make sure the shots were *good*, but if you're going to do it, do it as authentically as possible.
A modern film could easily make a few scenes on the moon with today's modern technology.

It would be hugely expensive, carry some risk and require actors actually willing to do it along with all the training that goes into it, but I think it would become an instant classic.

I'm sure it's been thought about by the rich and powerful in the film business, so shame it's never been considered viable.
 

FTL

Adherent
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
371
So true! I believe this exists for most sci-fi. We suspend belief in order to enjoy the story.

Take a sci-fi masterpiece like 2001: A Space Odyssey, which tried to be as accurate as possible to the point of complete silence in spaceship scenes. Brilliant movie, that could put a person to sleep!
And some require oh so much suspension! The noises in space are what really bug me. Big props to any movie that gets this right.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
I'd have filmed moon shots on location - on the moon. Could even send Kubrick to make sure the shots were *good*, but if you're going to do it, do it as authentically as possible.
Don't be silly. The moon is just a light in the clouds like the sun. No one can go there.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,704
But *everyone knows* that Kubrick filmed people landing on it in 1969!!!
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
I heard it's going to be upgraded to LED technology soon! :ROFLMAO:
It may be. Afterall, moonlight is cold. You can test it for yourself. Place one thermometer in the shade and another in full moonlight. The second one will register a lower temperature. Proof positive!
 

FTL

Adherent
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
371
It may be. Afterall, moonlight is cold. You can test it for yourself. Place one thermometer in the shade and another in full moonlight. The second one will register a lower temperature. Proof positive!
That makes no sense. Light is energy and that includes light at any frequency or intensity so it can't lower temperature. Perhaps there's some confounding factor at play?
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
That makes no sense.
This is an experiment that has been widely reproduced by flat earthers to prove the moon is not a solid object 384,000Km away. It is a luminary, close by that shines with a cold light.

In reality, it is easily explained. At night, the ground radiates heat stored from absorbing sunlight. Objects such as buildings or trees that cast shadows in moonlight, also prevent that radiant heat from dissipating as quickly as it does in an open area. So there will be a slightly higher reading from a thermometer placed in a shadowed area than one in an open area where the moonlight shines.

It's a good example of the danger in trusting a single experiment or study as the definitive answer.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,126

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,519
That's an interesting, if difficult read. The author is a terrible writer; that paper could have been half as long if all the unnecessary verbiage was removed. It's also a bit suspect that quite a number of the citations are from his own work.

That said, I think the gist of the paper is correct. Of course that is the beauty of the scientific method. Erroneous results get found out fairly quickly when others replicate the experiments and studies. I think part of the problem these days is when the media get hold of an interesting or particularly surprising study result and publicize it. Subsequent papers that come out refuting the findings confuse people and make them less trusting of science in general.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,469

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,126
Which is why science has peer review and reproducibility as part of its core.
For sure but the majority of people get their information not from peer reviewed science but from what news outlets focus on as being news worthy.

I've been around long enough to know that mobile phones, burnt toast, artificial sweeteners, stress, genetically modified foods, pesticides, herbicides, medical scans, cosmetics, injury and trauma, dairy products and plastics etc etc etc will all give me cancer. Except they won't. Or will they?

In short it's really not easy for the average person to determine what is real, even if you start to delve into peer reviewed science.

Somewhat longer view for what it's worth; Sometime in the late 70's my father who ran a department in the physiological lab at Cambridge University came home from work one day and threw away all our soft plastic food containers (aka Tupperware). This is someone who worked with lead, cadmium, mercury and microwaves on daily basis.

To this day I have no idea whether his totally out of character behavior had merit or not but it was enough to teach me to question everything and I won't allow soft plastic food container in the house.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
738
I've been around long enough to know that mobile phones, burnt toast, artificial sweeteners, stress, genetically modified foods, pesticides, herbicides, medical scans, cosmetics, injury and trauma, dairy products and plastics etc etc etc will all give me cancer. Except they won't. Or will they?

I've been around long enough that the Egg was good for you, then bad for you, then good for you, then good for you if you only eat the whites, then bad for you, then good for you if it is from free-range chickens (though I will admit these taste better). I'm not sure what the status of the incredible, edible egg is now.
 
Top