The Fifth Element - Was Earth Still Doomed?

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, but did it have mass?

I'm pretty certain there is an image showing the mass increasing after the first missile impact, but I could be thinking of the diameter.

The diameter increased, we saw nothing of it's mass. And while it looks like a moon a body of that size only gravitationally bound would come apart under acceleration. Thus it's something else designed to look like a moon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was much more focused on Liloo when I saw the film than on the technical details. I have to go back and watch it again. This was one of the earliest blu ray movies to come out

That crazy hairdo made her not hot to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, but did it have mass?

I'm pretty certain there is an image showing the mass increasing after the first missile impact, but I could be thinking of the diameter.

The diameter increased, we saw nothing of it's mass. And while it looks like a moon a body of that size only gravitationally bound would come apart under acceleration. Thus it's something else designed to look like a moon.

Or perhaps some sort of phenomena that is not necessarily designed to look as such but just happens to occupy a spherical region of spacetime where it is manifested.

It might just be the size of the "spot" that the interdimensional "3 year old" is focusing his "magnifying glass" before the "garden alarm" goes off and his parents ground him again for the weekend for trying to burn the ant colony out there down.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah, but did it have mass?

I'm pretty certain there is an image showing the mass increasing after the first missile impact, but I could be thinking of the diameter.

The diameter increased, we saw nothing of it's mass. And while it looks like a moon a body of that size only gravitationally bound would come apart under acceleration. Thus it's something else designed to look like a moon.

It was a ball of fire until the beam solidified it into a rocky thing. It wasn't "designed" at all. No one knows what it was. Except maybe Steve Allen. He probably invented it.

I was much more focused on Liloo when I saw the film than on the technical details. I have to go back and watch it again. This was one of the earliest blu ray movies to come out

That crazy hairdo made her not hot to me.

Well... we all can have our own opinions, no matter how crazy they make you look.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah, but did it have mass?

I'm pretty certain there is an image showing the mass increasing after the first missile impact, but I could be thinking of the diameter.

The diameter increased, we saw nothing of it's mass. And while it looks like a moon a body of that size only gravitationally bound would come apart under acceleration. Thus it's something else designed to look like a moon.

It was a ball of fire until the beam solidified it into a rocky thing. It wasn't "designed" at all. No one knows what it was. Except maybe Steve Allen. He probably invented it.

I was much more focused on Liloo when I saw the film than on the technical details. I have to go back and watch it again. This was one of the earliest blu ray movies to come out

That crazy hairdo made her not hot to me.

Well... we all can have our own opinions, no matter how crazy they make you look.

I'm gay as hell and I could tell she was bangin'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, but did it have mass?

I'm pretty certain there is an image showing the mass increasing after the first missile impact, but I could be thinking of the diameter.

The diameter increased, we saw nothing of it's mass. And while it looks like a moon a body of that size only gravitationally bound would come apart under acceleration. Thus it's something else designed to look like a moon.

It was a ball of fire until the beam solidified it into a rocky thing. It wasn't "designed" at all. No one knows what it was. Except maybe Steve Allen. He probably invented it.

To me it looked like the beam extinguished the "fire", leaving behind the object that had been concealed beneath.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was watching a video on the meteoroid that boomed in the sky in Russia. That exploded about 60 miles high in the sky. Where the large mass came to rest. Visually in the movie, the ball is clearly further from the Earth's surface than 62 miles high (somewhere closer than half way of the Earth to Moon), so I just take that as poor proof-reading.

I get the issue of the Newtonian physics, but I can hand wave and say "magic". My concern was what does that ball do afterwards.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

Or, everyone lived happily ever after and Hot Sex was had in a reconstructive chamber.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

There's not enough pressure at that altitude to make an implosion do much. Chelyabinsk was simply a daylight-level streak in the sky until it came apart and dumped half a megaton of kinetic energy in one spot.

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

There's not enough pressure at that altitude to make an implosion do much. Chelyabinsk was simply a daylight-level streak in the sky until it came apart and dumped half a megaton of kinetic energy in one spot.

I'm talking a gravitationally significant mass falling in on itself. I'm thinking the appearance of 2/3rds of the mass of a moon falling into 2/3 the mass of a moon across a hollow center. It would quickly melt, and the gooey, continent sized chunks of molten stuff would rain down before the rest of it destabilized and fell into the atmosphere.

 

[Politesse]

The film required extensive use of miniatures to achieve its VFX, as you can see in this excellent recent documentary on its production:



Perhaps the miniature was what was floating 62 miles out, so that it could look farther away in the final shot?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

There's not enough pressure at that altitude to make an implosion do much. Chelyabinsk was simply a daylight-level streak in the sky until it came apart and dumped half a megaton of kinetic energy in one spot.

I'm talking a gravitationally significant mass falling in on itself. I'm thinking the appearance of 2/3rds of the mass of a moon falling into 2/3 the mass of a moon across a hollow center. It would quickly melt, and the gooey, continent sized chunks of molten stuff would rain down before the rest of it destabilized and fell into the atmosphere.

But if it's a hollow shell why would it have a gravitationally significant mass?

The fact that it held together after being stopped says it must actually be a vessel disguised as a moon, not actually a moon.

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

There's not enough pressure at that altitude to make an implosion do much. Chelyabinsk was simply a daylight-level streak in the sky until it came apart and dumped half a megaton of kinetic energy in one spot.

I'm talking a gravitationally significant mass falling in on itself. I'm thinking the appearance of 2/3rds of the mass of a moon falling into 2/3 the mass of a moon across a hollow center. It would quickly melt, and the gooey, continent sized chunks of molten stuff would rain down before the rest of it destabilized and fell into the atmosphere.

But if it's a hollow shell why would it have a gravitationally significant mass?

The fact that it held together after being stopped says it must actually be a vessel disguised as a moon, not actually a moon.

The outside wouldn't, but if it's just a hollow moon sized eggshell, it's still going to have an unstable crust that's going to implode onto it's center violently. I'm just spitballing the "hollow crust" scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps by "62 miles from impact", the president meant that the thing stopped 62 miles away from the point it would have started seriously wrecking shit up, as opposed to 62 miles from the surface per se?

The Russian boom wasn't because the meteor was 62 miles up. The boom was because that's where the deceleration caused it to come apart, liberating basically all it's kinetic energy in an instant. The evil was stopped by the beam, not by the atmosphere--either there's no effect or the energy is liberated at the temple. In neither case do you get a huge boom 62 miles up.

Well, you could get a boom 62 miles up if it were hollow. The collapse of the shell layer would result in an implosion with significant explosive ejecta.

There's not enough pressure at that altitude to make an implosion do much. Chelyabinsk was simply a daylight-level streak in the sky until it came apart and dumped half a megaton of kinetic energy in one spot.

I'm talking a gravitationally significant mass falling in on itself. I'm thinking the appearance of 2/3rds of the mass of a moon falling into 2/3 the mass of a moon across a hollow center. It would quickly melt, and the gooey, continent sized chunks of molten stuff would rain down before the rest of it destabilized and fell into the atmosphere.

But if it's a hollow shell why would it have a gravitationally significant mass?

The fact that it held together after being stopped says it must actually be a vessel disguised as a moon, not actually a moon.

The outside wouldn't, but if it's just a hollow moon sized eggshell, it's still going to have an unstable crust that's going to implode onto it's center violently. I'm just spitballing the "hollow crust" scenario.

It's within Earth's Roche limit--since it remains stable it must actually possess some strength.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The outside wouldn't, but if it's just a hollow moon sized eggshell, it's still going to have an unstable crust that's going to implode onto it's center violently. I'm just spitballing the "hollow crust" scenario.

It's within Earth's Roche limit--since it remains stable it must actually possess some strength.

But was it stable? It was never said to be in orbit of Earth. So if it isn't in orbit, what then? Plummets or Earth hits it in some subsequent impact... caught in Lagrange point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The outside wouldn't, but if it's just a hollow moon sized eggshell, it's still going to have an unstable crust that's going to implode onto it's center violently. I'm just spitballing the "hollow crust" scenario.

It's within Earth's Roche limit--since it remains stable it must actually possess some strength.

But was it stable? It was never said to be in orbit of Earth. So if it isn't in orbit, what then? Plummets or Earth hits it in some subsequent impact... caught in Lagrange point?

If it was going to fall it would have squashed them in the temple--that beam went straight up, it was aimed for the temple. Thus the fact they survived says it didn't fall. I think it must have been left behind.