The "Sun" in Revolutions

Larry G wrote:
> Just finished watching the third installment of the Matrix for the
> first time, so sorry if this is a dumb question. Toward the end of
> the movie when Trinity and Neo are in (or near) Zion, they reach the
> surface where they see the "sun" and are in awe of its beauty. This
> is before the end of the film where we see the colorful sun in the
> Matrix.
>
> But, I thought in the first film, Morpheus tells Neo that humans
> destroyed the sun in hopes that the machines would lose their only
> source of energy. What gives? What "sun" are they seeing in
> "Revolutions"?

Animatrix explains it better than me (Second Renaissance, sorry about the
spelling). But basically they didn't destroy the sun, they blackened the
sky's.

There's lots of speculation over how they did it and what they were going to
do when the machines were destroyed from it, but the Wachowski Brothers
haven't said anything about it, so its all just opinions.
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

They didnt destory the sun .. They destroyed, or "scorched" the sky. Ie,
they blackened the sky out, hence, blocking the sun out. Its still there,
its just really high up.

The hovercraft flew above the clouds for a few seconds, and they saw it ..


"Larry G" <thelarry_g3.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6cc9b$aj81c$1@ID-37509.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Just finished watching the third installment of the Matrix for the first
> time, so sorry if this is a dumb question. Toward the end of the movie
when
> Trinity and Neo are in (or near) Zion, they reach the surface where they
see
> the "sun" and are in awe of its beauty. This is before the end of the
film
> where we see the colorful sun in the Matrix.
>
> But, I thought in the first film, Morpheus tells Neo that humans destroyed
> the sun in hopes that the machines would lose their only source of energy.
> What gives? What "sun" are they seeing in "Revolutions"?
>
> Larry
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

"PouchCotato" <pouchcotatoNOSPAM.RemoveThis@iinet.net.au> wrote in message ...
> Animatrix explains it better than me (Second Renaissance, sorry about the
> spelling). But basically they didn't destroy the sun, they blackened the
> sky's.
>
> There's lots of speculation over how they did it and what they were going
to
> do when the machines were destroyed from it, but the Wachowski Brothers
> haven't said anything about it, so its all just opinions.

Thanks everyone. That makes more sense. I should have thought of that
before. I guess I just assumed they somehow destroyed the sun because I
figured the machines would have found a way to go above the storm cloud or
something. I had always figured the humans went underground to get heat
from the earth's core. Which, I guess they did, but not the way I thought.

Larry
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

yup.. pretty much. the sun is too far away really and too massive to
destroy.. kind of like a perpetual ultra heavy storm cloud over the whole
earth.. (if you notice the way the sky moves it has lightning etc in the
simulation morpheous showed neo the 1st time. being an actual
representation.
"Tao_Tzu_Fu" <pmurphy2 DeleteThis @satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jsnic.21362$NR5.963@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> I thought that they said that the humans had blackened the sky, to cut off
> the solar energy that the machines were using to power themselves. Thats
> when they began to harvest humans for their body heat, therefore allowing
> them to covert the heat to energy.
>
>
> "Larry G" <thelarry_g3 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c6cc9b$aj81c$1@ID-37509.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Just finished watching the third installment of the Matrix for the first
> > time, so sorry if this is a dumb question. Toward the end of the movie
> when
> > Trinity and Neo are in (or near) Zion, they reach the surface where they
> see
> > the "sun" and are in awe of its beauty. This is before the end of the
> film
> > where we see the colorful sun in the Matrix.
> >
> > But, I thought in the first film, Morpheus tells Neo that humans
destroyed
> > the sun in hopes that the machines would lose their only source of
energy.
> > What gives? What "sun" are they seeing in "Revolutions"?
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

By the way, if the sun was destroyed, earth and all other planets of our
milky way would shoot into space with all kinds of nasty side-effects, plus
the earth would freeze to death because there'd be nothing warming it
anymore.
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

In article <408ce9a8$0$67504$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Jumpkick" <nospam DeleteThis @me.com> wrote:

> By the way, if the sun was destroyed, earth and all other planets of our
> milky way would shoot into space with all kinds of nasty side-effects, plus
> the earth would freeze to death because there'd be nothing warming it
> anymore.

Actually, if the sun blew up (i.e went supernova), we'd be consumed by it. This
is actually what is going to happen in a few billion years. The sun will expand
to become a red giant and consume every planet in the inner solar system.

And while it's obvious that they haven't dug so deep, should the sun just
vanish then earth has an inner combustion which could serve as a heat reservoir
(and this is hinted in M1 ("near the earths core, where it's still warm") but
contradicted in FFOTO where they say Zion is 2 (4?) km down.

But yes, earth would fly around planlessly in space for a very long time.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:51:24 +0200, "Jumpkick" <nospam.DeleteThis@me.com> wrote:

>By the way, if the sun was destroyed,

Depends on what you mean by "destroyed". If you mean "rendered unable
to support fusion", then you still likely have all the mass of the Sun
intact, and so the gravitational effects of the Sun, including the
Solar System's orbital mechanics, continue. Without the radiation
pressure provided by fusion, the Sun's own gravity would crush the
Sun's mass down to something much smaller, like a neutron star. A
relatively large amount of energy would be released, but the change in
mass would be minimal. The Sun lacks the mass to drive itself into a
black hole, however. Of course, if you know enough physics to inhibit
fusion in a star, perhaps these other things can be manipulated as
well.

If, on the other hand, destroying the Sun involved removing a
significant portion of it's mass, then yes, the orbits of the planets
would be modified, including, perhaps, escaping the Sun's pull
completely. That's assuming the process involved did not cause enough
collateral damage to destroy the inner planets altogether.

> earth and all other planets of our
>milky way

Solar System. Not the whole Galaxy.

>would shoot into space with all kinds of nasty side-effects, plus
>the earth would freeze to death because there'd be nothing warming it
>anymore.
>
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

seems more like they were refering to warm compared to else where. but with
the machiens they have, problem solved..
"Sandman" <mr.DeleteThis@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-317390.13540526042004@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <408ce9a8$0$67504$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Jumpkick" <nospam.DeleteThis@me.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, if the sun was destroyed, earth and all other planets of our
> > milky way would shoot into space with all kinds of nasty side-effects,
plus
> > the earth would freeze to death because there'd be nothing warming it
> > anymore.
>
> Actually, if the sun blew up (i.e went supernova), we'd be consumed by it.
This
> is actually what is going to happen in a few billion years. The sun will
expand
> to become a red giant and consume every planet in the inner solar system.
>
> And while it's obvious that they haven't dug so deep, should the sun just
> vanish then earth has an inner combustion which could serve as a heat
reservoir
> (and this is hinted in M1 ("near the earths core, where it's still warm")
but
> contradicted in FFOTO where they say Zion is 2 (4?) km down.
>
> But yes, earth would fly around planlessly in space for a very long time.
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

In article <408d0f4d$0$29255$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Logan" <logan1 DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>> By the way, if the sun was destroyed, earth and all other planets of
>>> our milky way would shoot into space with all kinds of nasty
>>> side-effects, plus the earth would freeze to death because there'd
>>> be nothing warming it anymore.
>>
>> Actually, if the sun blew up (i.e went supernova), we'd be consumed
>> by it. This is actually what is going to happen in a few billion
>> years. The sun will expand to become a red giant and consume every
>> planet in the inner solar system.
>>
>> And while it's obvious that they haven't dug so deep, should the sun
>> just vanish then earth has an inner combustion which could serve as a
>> heat reservoir (and this is hinted in M1 ("near the earths core,
>> where it's still warm") but contradicted in FFOTO where they say Zion
>> is 2 (4?) km down.
>>
>> But yes, earth would fly around planlessly in space for a very long
>> time.
>
> seems more like they were refering to warm compared to else where. but with
> the machiens they have, problem solved..

Yes, but the implication in M1 was that humans dwelled near the earths core
where it was still warm. In M2 it turns out they are nowhere near the earths
core.

Being 2km down doesn't mean it's any warmer, practically speaking.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

--- Sandman wrote in <news:mr-317390.13540526042004@news.fu-berlin.de>
>
> And while it's obvious that they haven't dug so deep, should the sun just
> vanish then earth has an inner combustion which could serve as a heat
> reservoir (and this is hinted in M1 ("near the earths core, where it's
> still warm") but contradicted in FFOTO where they say Zion is 2 (4?) km
> down.

4.
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

thanks, mixed up things

I did mean for the sun to lose mass/vanish somehow, because the red giant
would indeed eat up half the solar system before collapsing into a white
dwarf. Would a white dwarf be able to keep the solar system together?
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

In article <408e10bb$0$72201$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Jumpkick" <nospam.DeleteThis@me.com> wrote:

> thanks, mixed up things
>
> I did mean for the sun to lose mass/vanish somehow, because the red giant
> would indeed eat up half the solar system before collapsing into a white
> dwarf. Would a white dwarf be able to keep the solar system together?

No, but there wouldn't be a solar system to keep together. :)

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:27:48 +0200, Sandman <mr RemoveThis @sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <408e10bb$0$72201$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> "Jumpkick" <nospam RemoveThis @me.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks, mixed up things
>>
>> I did mean for the sun to lose mass/vanish somehow, because the red giant
>> would indeed eat up half the solar system before collapsing into a white
>> dwarf. Would a white dwarf be able to keep the solar system together?
>
>No, but there wouldn't be a solar system to keep together. :)

Why wouldn't it? It's mass would be basically the same as Sol's
current mass. Since physics says gravity acts as though it comes from
a point-source, it doesn't matter if the mass that's generating the
gravity is big (Sol) or small (white drawf).

It's all about the mass...
 >> Stay informed about: The "Sun" in Revolutions