If the moon is destroyed.. how is it not on the island?

[Cosmic Glowsticks]

I didn't wanna make the title too long, but when you battle the overseer, you can clearly see the moon has been blasted to smithereens. So that leaves the question, how come it's perfectly fine on the island and SE? I know the lore isn't complete (aka we don't know it all) yet, but does anyone know why?

Extra nerd thing: It's not very realistic. All of those pieces should either be raining down to Earth or forming a ring around it, or both. Likely both. Plus there should be fire/molten rock in the scene as well! Such an impact/means of destruction would obviously expose molten rock or create it even on a geologically dead planet/moon. So why isn't there?

[Benski]

Idk ask Master Roshi.

[Natjur]

The moon was destroy.......a long long time ago. Its stop raining down and now what has not fallen is in a more or less stable orbit with all the Arks....is my guess

(From what you see on the Overlord ship, not what you see what on the Ark, cause the whole sky there is 'fake'. To see the REAL sky, go to the surface of aberration during the day.)

[Shpeeno]

Well, the sky itself is all supposed to be a simulation, and not actually there. so possibly they just project a normal moon on it aswell.

[KaijuSushi]

Maybe there is a time differencial between arks like in Anthomnia's ark lore videos and how he pointed out that Helena Walker went to SE after The Island and after that she went to Aberration, but Mei Yin went straight from The Island to Aberration and met up with Helena while Helena had only been on Aberration for a few days (if that makes sense).

So maybe you see the moon distroyed on The Island but then when you go to another ark it's a few years/monthes before? I really don't know. Otherwise maybe it's just a projection.

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Shpeeno:

Well, the sky itself is all supposed to be a simulation, and not actually there. so possibly they just project a normal moon on it aswell.

This makes the most sense imo

[Cosmic Glowsticks]

True, that makes sense, but it still isn't scientifically correct. you can still see chunks of the moon, and they appear to be drifting and should fall down to earth, as it appears they're being pulled towards it or going in that direction, even if it was destroyed long ago.

[Eminence]

Originally posted by Cosmic Glowsticks:

True, that makes sense, but it still isn't scientifically correct. you can still see chunks of the moon, and they appear to be drifting and should fall down to earth, as it appears they're being pulled towards it or going in that direction, even if it was destroyed long ago.

That is the scientific inaccuracy you want to focus on here?? Of all the things in Ark that are scientifically impossible, you focus on gravity?

[Cosmic Glowsticks]

Originally posted by Eminence:

Originally posted by Cosmic Glowsticks:

True, that makes sense, but it still isn't scientifically correct. you can still see chunks of the moon, and they appear to be drifting and should fall down to earth, as it appears they're being pulled towards it or going in that direction, even if it was destroyed long ago.

That is the scientific inaccuracy you want to focus on here?? Of all the things in Ark that are scientifically impossible, you focus on gravity?

That's just what stands out most to me, and probably one of the most obvious ones.

[Eminence]

Originally posted by Cosmic Glowsticks:

Originally posted by Eminence:

That is the scientific inaccuracy you want to focus on here?? Of all the things in Ark that are scientifically impossible, you focus on gravity?

That's just what stands out most to me, and probably one of the most obvious ones.

How about reviving? Teleporting via the teleporter, obelisks, beacons, and BEDS? Creatures that can fly with solid metal structures on their back? Creatures breathing fire (unlikely but possibly engineerable), poison (again unlikely but venom could be weaponized in that fashion) and LIGHTNING! The energy required could not be contained or created in a living creature. Rafts with unlimited buoyancy? Knocking out creatures by hitting them in the face... With explosives?

I mean those are just the ones off the top of my head. Not that there's anything wrong with you questioning this. I just personally go "Meh, video games will video game" and move on lol

[Yaka]

You're asking that in a game with dinosaurs (and some fantasy creatures)? :D

[LongBow722]

Its a simulation on the ARK's dome. You'll see one fail on the end cutsceen for aberration.

[Cosmic Glowsticks]

Originally posted by Eminence:

Originally posted by Cosmic Glowsticks:

That's just what stands out most to me, and probably one of the most obvious ones.

How about reviving? Teleporting via the teleporter, obelisks, beacons, and BEDS? Creatures that can fly with solid metal structures on their back? Creatures breathing fire (unlikely but possibly engineerable), poison (again unlikely but venom could be weaponized in that fashion) and LIGHTNING! The energy required could not be contained or created in a living creature. Rafts with unlimited buoyancy? Knocking out creatures by hitting them in the face... With explosives?

I mean those are just the ones off the top of my head. Not that there's anything wrong with you questioning this. I just personally go "Meh, video games will video game" and move on lol

Those are all different scenarios. I've actually seen a few explaination on how dragons could've breathed fire. In no way am I saying everything needs to be accurate or that that is the only scientific issue. It's just odd and.. not right in my opinion. The moon being destroyed is not part of a stimulation or anything and thereby follows the rules and acts like a real world object, so the pieces should not be just floating there like that. Plus, due to the lack of friction in space, they should indeed be moving, aside from the fact it already looks like they should be. Plus, like I said, they should be raining down to earth or should have rained down, along with the rest of the moon, turning the earth's surface molten, which it appears to be in the cutscene, but not when you look at the planet. Any structures on it should've been obliverated but I'm not even gonna bother with that for obvious reasons. The planet doesn't match the cutscene either with the molten and charred look in the cutscene. Respawning is not part of the lore.

[DeFox]

Idk, maybe the same reason why some planets can have astroid belts around them and the astroids don't all just fall onto the planet

[Shy]

has it not occured to anyone that each 'ark' is in a different place in space? That they are basically terriariums in space that are controlled? I mean come on, how can it be a planet? You hit a solid giant freaking invisible wall instead of going all the way around? And from the looks of aberration when you see the inner workings with metal and stuff that looked like they were the frame work torn to hell.... We're all little science experiments in little terrariums floating in space able to teleport from one to another, not on one solitary planet....

[Ghost]

Spoiler. They are space stations.