Science of Melancholia

The Lars von Trier movie

Discuss celestial objects and phenomena outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Moderators: Darkchilde, Calilasseia

Re: Science of Melancholia

 
 

Re: Science of Melancholia

#21  Postby orpheus » Dec 04, 2011 2:23 pm

I really want to see this film. Judging from the trailer, it looks like it's quite artistic. Not in the pretentious bullshit sense of the word; but in the sense of its having a shape, consistent aesthetics, a tangible mood - and enough complexity in these areas to sustain interest for the duration of the film. In other words, qualities that most Hollywood films today lack. Anyway, I want to see it.

I found it a while ago on iTunes. That surprised me, because here in New York we're used to getting films in the theatres before the rest of the country does - and certainly before they appear on teh Interwebz. But iTunes had a neat scheme whereby you could see certain films pre-theatrical release for a price somewhat higher than they normally charge. With other films I would have been tempted, but this one looked like I really should experience it old-style: in a dark cinema, on the big screen.

Sadly, when it was in the NYC cinemas, I was for various reasons unable to go. So I may have to break down and get the video after all. Ah well.

I've more thoughts on the film itself; will post again soon. Posting from my iPhone; thumbs tired.
Ognuno sta solo sul cuor della terra
trafitto da un raggio di sole:
ed è subito sera


-Salvatore Quasimodo
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 3092
Age: 47
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)

Re: Science of Melancholia

#22  Postby 4myerudition » Dec 27, 2011 6:10 am

I have joined this site just to ask this question. What I'm wondering is why would a planet that big travel towards us, wouldn't we travel towards it because its gravitational pull would be stronger than the pull of the sun which keeps us in our orbit? So at some stage wouldn't our orbit be disrupted as the planet approached. But how could that even happen because... why would it be aimlessly travelling through space? Something larger than the sun would have to be attracting it, otherwise it would just orbit the sun, if it always had.
4myerudition
 
Posts: 2

Australia (au)

Re: Science of Melancholia

#23  Postby klazmon » Dec 27, 2011 12:02 pm

4myerudition wrote:I have joined this site just to ask this question. What I'm wondering is why would a planet that big travel towards us, wouldn't we travel towards it because its gravitational pull would be stronger than the pull of the sun which keeps us in our orbit? So at some stage wouldn't our orbit be disrupted as the planet approached. But how could that even happen because... why would it be aimlessly travelling through space? Something larger than the sun would have to be attracting it, otherwise it would just orbit the sun, if it always had.


There are many planets wandering through the galaxy without belonging to any solar system. Most likely they originally formed as part of a solar system but were subsequently ejected. Our own solar system most likely ejected at least one Neptune sized planet before it settled down to more or less its current configuration (at least according to the best current numerical simulations). Still the chances of an encounter with our inner solar system would be quite low and any such object would pass through on a hyperbolic orbit. Such an object could perturb the orbits of the solar system planets if it passed close enough to any of them.

Time wrote:The bitterly fought Pluto wars of a few years back showed that even the experts disagree on what is and what isn't a planet. One thing there's no quarrel about, of course: a planet is, by definition, something that orbits a star.

Except, it turns out, when it isn't. Writing in the latest issue of Nature, a team of astronomers is reporting the discovery of 10 objects roughly the size of Jupiter that seem to be on the loose, roaming the galaxy untethered to any star. And while 10 seems to be an insignificant number in a galaxy packed with 200 billion or more stars, the search was an extremely limited one. Unless the observers happened to be absurdly lucky, there could actually be a lot more of these rogue Jupiters — perhaps twice as many as there are stars in the Milky Way.


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2072290,00.html
User avatar
klazmon
 
Posts: 1533
Age: 102
Male

New Zealand (nz)

Re: Science of Melancholia

#24  Postby 4myerudition » Dec 28, 2011 1:46 am

So shouldn't we call these 'rogue' planets if you like, something else, since by definition they should be orbiting a star?
4myerudition
 
Posts: 2

Australia (au)

Re: Science of Melancholia

 
 

Re: Science of Melancholia

#25  Postby Matt H » Apr 24, 2012 1:05 am

Well I just saw it, loved it, thought it was a true work of art, a masterpiece in fact. Very emotionally engaging.

However the science bothered me right from the start (or end). Surely before the planet makes physical contact with Earth, everyone will be dead anyway? The gravitational pull of such a huge object in Earth would boil away our oceans, wouldn't it? Or rip away our magnetosphere, letting the Sun cook us in minutes. I know that wouldn't have worked well for what the film was trying to portray, but I'd really like to see it done right in a film.

Still, it didn't have any of the kind of anti-science garbage that your typical Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich film might have.
"The most remarkable people, to me, were those who apparently approved of everything I said but nonetheless wouldn't dream of voting for the Liberal Party. It reminded me of Somalia: they wouldn't vote outside their clan."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
User avatar
Matt H
 
Posts: 2576
Male

Country: UK
Falkland Islands (fk)

Previous

Return to Astronomy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest