Discuss the plausibility of the ending of the plot

Jewell 2022-03-20 09:01:58

Seeing that a lot of bean friends doubt the rationality of double stars, I will share my views here, and welcome to discuss together.

I support my opinion, and my humble opinion is as follows:

Jupiter collapses first, its volume becomes smaller, its density becomes larger, and its surface gravity becomes larger after it becomes smaller, but its total mass remains the same. When fusion occurs, the surface material in the new environment cannot escape gravity, so the total mass remains the same, and Jupiter will remain in the protoplanetary orbit.

The new Jupiter star is still a planet in the solar system and will not affect the operation of other planets. It is just that compared to Callisto, it plays the role of the sun, so that the chlorophyll that has appeared in the past 9 years can more effectively accept the light energy of the stars (the original sun's light to Jupiter is not enough because the distance is too far) for photosynthesis, After this is the beginning of a new life.

New life appears on Callisto. Although it is a synchronous rotation satellite (it does not rule out the possibility that the collapse of Jupiter will change the rotation speed of Callisto), life forms different from the earth may also appear in eternal day and night.

The light energy generated by the new Jupiter stars is actually very small to the earth, with a small size and a long distance, so life on the earth can continue to survive, and the solar system continues to remain stable.

And when David was in this second part, he should have been quantized, right? Has no fixed form and can ignore distance (also appears twice on Earth). How can there be any immortals, buddhas, ghosts, etc., we must analyze and explain from a scientific point of view!

View more about 2010: The Year We Make Contact reviews

Extended Reading
  • Owen 2022-04-24 07:01:14

    I watched 2001 when I was a kid. Oh my god, what was that movie? It was dull and obscure. I remember my dad was always explaining it to me. I could understand a little bit, but this sequel is simple and clear. In the 1984 film, I read some comments and materials, and I answered a lot of questions. Don't say it's a continuation of the dog's tail. There must be arguments and foundations for nitpicking. At least it has completed its mission. The Queen's Russian is very sexy!

  • Orin 2022-03-26 09:01:07

    One and a half stars. The first half is very boring, and the second half answers the ending of 2001 somewhat. Reminds me of watching "Docter Sleep" (the sequel to "The Shining") a while ago, although they and 2001+2010 both have the same original author, but the film team is very different. The director of this film is quite strange. In 13 of the works he directed, he served as the director of photography, including this film. It was very touching to hear HAL's voice actor Douglas Rain (1928-2018) again, although I never imagined the language thinking of robots that way, and there is a SAL at the beginning of the film, which is awesome. The black square stone has just a little bit of drama, but the mystery has been reduced accordingly. Boring to add: After watching this film, I will watch another "US-Soviet cooperation" film "Runaway Train" (1985) that was almost the same year.

2010: The Year We Make Contact quotes

  • Victor Milson: Millson to Floyd: It's been twelve hours since I made my request for information! I need a reply - all hell is breaking loose down here! I have enough problems without you pulling some kind of a stunt! I just hope there's an Earth for you to return to! Make that report I asked for and make it immediately!

  • Tanya Kirbuk: What do you think that is?

    Dr. Heywood Floyd: I don't know. You think Max knows?

    Tanya Kirbuk: Dr. Floyd, you are not a very practical man.

    Dr. Heywood Floyd: [gesturing to the monolith outside the cockpit window] Look at that thing. Tell me what practical is.