Interstellar is the most retarded movie ever made and only the worst of the midwits liked it. Kip Thorne should be embarrassed to have been a "scientific consultant" on it and written a book literally entitled "The Science of Interstellar." I would honestly cite Space Balls as having a more scientifically coherent plot.
Sure, but the movie's better as a morality play than as sci-fi. They're trying to express spiritual entanglement as physical entanglement, which is what makes it fallacious. Yes, Kip knows better, but his philosophy is that all blackhole news is good news.
The basic relativistic effects referred to in Interstellar are real, like time dilation. So in principle a planet orbiting near a black hole could have that sort of time effect that you see in the movie. But the entire premise of the movie and most of the delivery of it make no sense. Of course, for speculative things like the wormhole and whatever, it is almost impossible to say it is inaccurate because in all likelihood such things do not exist.
I am sure that the visualization of the black hole is mostly accurate, which is what the video from OP is originally talking about. I mean, no one has ever gone to look at a black hole, but in the case of a black hole we know what it is and have more or less exact equations that you could use to make simulated graphics like this for a movie.
The premise of the movie is: (1) (Former NASA pilot) Man's daughter sees weird behavior of dust in her room (2) Weird dust behavior "traced to a gravitational anomaly at a NASA facility" (whatever that means) (3) Man goes to NASA facility and finds out that for 48 years they have been "watching a wormhole on the far side of Saturn to another galaxy near its black hole" (just think about how insane this premise is (4) Due to "muh climate change" the NASA scientists determined that a more likely survival scenario is to fly humans to Saturn to traverse the wormhole to another galaxy to look for inhabitable planets (again, consider how ridiculous this premise is) because they cannot solve their "magic gravity equation to save humanity" unless they can "see a black hole singularity" (5)The search party found 3 contenders and NASA wants Man to lead a team to go check up on them (6) Team traverses wormhole and subset goes to first planet which is so close the black hole the Lorentz factor is 1 hour : 22 years (or whatever) (7) Team lands on this planet with no problem but is hit by a tidal wave, making it take an hour to get off, then simply returns to the ship (8) Team goes to next planet but Matt Damon is a secret villain who betrayed humanity (9) Team survives and the only way home is a gravitational slingshot around the black hole where Man (and one of the robots) sacrifice themselves to the black hole "in order to save weight" (10) Man falls into the black hole and the robot takes all sorts of important data (11) Inside the black hole Man is in a tesseract looking at himself and his daughter in the past (12) Man is able to tap out the data from inside the black hole to his daughter in the past so that when she grows up she will have the data to solve the "magic gravity equation and save humanity" (13) Now that its purpose to save humanity is fulfilled, the black hole tesseract collapses out of existence (14) The black hole returns Man to his home planet of earth, where his (now elderly) daughter has saved humanity with the "magic gravity equation."
Sorry about all that. But anyway, it should be clear why this is totally ridiculous, even by Hollywood standards. What they are talking about with this post are that the visualizations are mathematically consistent with GR.
Like I said, a morality play. Science takes a few thousand years to catch up with religion on average. Notice how The Black Hole itself (not to mention Star Trek Undiscovered Country) couldn't help putting heaven and hell in the black hole? But they ain't there, which is why black hole as amorphous "Facilitator" makes more sense ....
I'm no scientist and my main curiosity is the time travel. If one could tap in I imagine it would go exactly like that, returning to your past to recalibrate your future, giving signs you know would work because it's a personal investment.
Heh heh. Well, whatever Thorne says will be accurate, but like his friend Hawking he will be sensationalizing it. But the idea of getting caught in a vortex to affect exactly the spacetime your former self is in, well, science hasn't figured that out yet, but it's routine for the spiritual realm. So perhaps the effects are "too good" for what science knows now. The time dilation was "all right" but by my standards "all right" means at Planet of the Apes level.
I guess I am evaluating it from a scifi, and specifically as a "sci semi nonfi" (which is what it was shilled as) perspective. If you want to evaluate it from the perspective of morality or human society and being united or whatever then fine. Also, if you evaluate it from the usual "it's a movie it isn't supposed to be accurate" perspective, then yeah. Laser swords make no sense but Star Wars was wildly popular.
But as a movie specifically shilled as "this movie is based on on real science in consultation with real physicists" it is retarded. The entire plot makes no more sense than Star Wars, Star Trek, The Terminator, The Matrix, Time Cop, or any other movie.
I would believe that those visualization scenes were based on real simulations of the EFEs though, which I guess is kind of cool.
Interstellar is the most retarded movie ever made and only the worst of the midwits liked it. Kip Thorne should be embarrassed to have been a "scientific consultant" on it and written a book literally entitled "The Science of Interstellar." I would honestly cite Space Balls as having a more scientifically coherent plot.
Sure, but the movie's better as a morality play than as sci-fi. They're trying to express spiritual entanglement as physical entanglement, which is what makes it fallacious. Yes, Kip knows better, but his philosophy is that all blackhole news is good news.
So the science of it is no good?
The basic relativistic effects referred to in Interstellar are real, like time dilation. So in principle a planet orbiting near a black hole could have that sort of time effect that you see in the movie. But the entire premise of the movie and most of the delivery of it make no sense. Of course, for speculative things like the wormhole and whatever, it is almost impossible to say it is inaccurate because in all likelihood such things do not exist.
I am sure that the visualization of the black hole is mostly accurate, which is what the video from OP is originally talking about. I mean, no one has ever gone to look at a black hole, but in the case of a black hole we know what it is and have more or less exact equations that you could use to make simulated graphics like this for a movie.
The premise of the movie is: (1) (Former NASA pilot) Man's daughter sees weird behavior of dust in her room (2) Weird dust behavior "traced to a gravitational anomaly at a NASA facility" (whatever that means) (3) Man goes to NASA facility and finds out that for 48 years they have been "watching a wormhole on the far side of Saturn to another galaxy near its black hole" (just think about how insane this premise is (4) Due to "muh climate change" the NASA scientists determined that a more likely survival scenario is to fly humans to Saturn to traverse the wormhole to another galaxy to look for inhabitable planets (again, consider how ridiculous this premise is) because they cannot solve their "magic gravity equation to save humanity" unless they can "see a black hole singularity" (5)The search party found 3 contenders and NASA wants Man to lead a team to go check up on them (6) Team traverses wormhole and subset goes to first planet which is so close the black hole the Lorentz factor is 1 hour : 22 years (or whatever) (7) Team lands on this planet with no problem but is hit by a tidal wave, making it take an hour to get off, then simply returns to the ship (8) Team goes to next planet but Matt Damon is a secret villain who betrayed humanity (9) Team survives and the only way home is a gravitational slingshot around the black hole where Man (and one of the robots) sacrifice themselves to the black hole "in order to save weight" (10) Man falls into the black hole and the robot takes all sorts of important data (11) Inside the black hole Man is in a tesseract looking at himself and his daughter in the past (12) Man is able to tap out the data from inside the black hole to his daughter in the past so that when she grows up she will have the data to solve the "magic gravity equation and save humanity" (13) Now that its purpose to save humanity is fulfilled, the black hole tesseract collapses out of existence (14) The black hole returns Man to his home planet of earth, where his (now elderly) daughter has saved humanity with the "magic gravity equation."
Sorry about all that. But anyway, it should be clear why this is totally ridiculous, even by Hollywood standards. What they are talking about with this post are that the visualizations are mathematically consistent with GR.
Like I said, a morality play. Science takes a few thousand years to catch up with religion on average. Notice how The Black Hole itself (not to mention Star Trek Undiscovered Country) couldn't help putting heaven and hell in the black hole? But they ain't there, which is why black hole as amorphous "Facilitator" makes more sense ....
I'm no scientist and my main curiosity is the time travel. If one could tap in I imagine it would go exactly like that, returning to your past to recalibrate your future, giving signs you know would work because it's a personal investment.
Heh heh. Well, whatever Thorne says will be accurate, but like his friend Hawking he will be sensationalizing it. But the idea of getting caught in a vortex to affect exactly the spacetime your former self is in, well, science hasn't figured that out yet, but it's routine for the spiritual realm. So perhaps the effects are "too good" for what science knows now. The time dilation was "all right" but by my standards "all right" means at Planet of the Apes level.
Ok this clears it up for me, I'm no scientist, haha. Time is funny.
I guess I am evaluating it from a scifi, and specifically as a "sci semi nonfi" (which is what it was shilled as) perspective. If you want to evaluate it from the perspective of morality or human society and being united or whatever then fine. Also, if you evaluate it from the usual "it's a movie it isn't supposed to be accurate" perspective, then yeah. Laser swords make no sense but Star Wars was wildly popular.
But as a movie specifically shilled as "this movie is based on on real science in consultation with real physicists" it is retarded. The entire plot makes no more sense than Star Wars, Star Trek, The Terminator, The Matrix, Time Cop, or any other movie.
I would believe that those visualization scenes were based on real simulations of the EFEs though, which I guess is kind of cool.