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 ....
Wow, I just read the Wiki on The Black Hole. What a great little cult classic. Also ridiculous, but honestly less so than Interstellar IMO. Thanks for the reference.
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.
I hear you. Time travel can be cool to think about but I think it is difficult for a movie to do it well. In my experience, movies generally (1) try too hard to explain the physics of how they are time traveling and (2) allow for so much freedom in the time travel that the plot becomes amorphous. In all seriousness, using a DeLorean with 1.21 gigawatts (mispronounced "jiggawats" of course) might be the best explanation for time travel of any movie.
But overall, I think my objection to Interstellar was that it was shilled in liberal circles as this "physically accurate movie that used real theoretical physicists as consultants." Its "physics" was about as realistic as Star Wars. I mean, the worm hole is "behind Saturn"? What does that even mean? It follows Saturn's orbit around the sun, but it doesn't orbit Saturn itself like all the moons and rings do? I guess since we have never seen a worm hole, no one can say for sure that this makes no sense...
So I think it is just a matter of interest and philosophy. SwampRanger is more interested in Sci Fi from that perspective it seems. Mostly as it functions as a morality and even religious allegory. So I understand that. My issue is that I love math and science so these movies always drive me bonkers.
I think OP's point in this post was making fun of the "believe science" people, who are generally liberals. OP disputes the globe model of the earth, I know this because he told me. He may be surprised to read this, but when it comes to posts like this one here, I actually agree with his main position. I.e., that people nowadays just "believe science." The reason why I have given the flat earthers much more time than I should have was because in my opinion, there should be nothing wrong with challenging the globe model or anything else in science. My problem is that most of these people have already made up their minds. They dispute the globe and there is no evidence that can sway them. But I like the challenge of flat earth theory, just like I like to hear why the moon landing was actually impossible.
I am sure that most of my liberal friends who loved Interstellar will never watch a flat earth documentary and work through their arguments one by one. Fundamentally, when they answer the FE argument that the oceans should fly off the ball that "they don't because of gravity," they are fitting exactly what FE people accuse them of. Because none of them can actually calculate what the centrifugal effect is at the equator.
Thanks for your input, I wish I was more advanced with math and science but I do find it fascinating and love thinking about the possibilities. Your arguments and viewpoints are very welcome with me.
I hadn't thought about the politics in the movie or how it was received, I really like any time travel possibilities tho.
SwampRanger is more interested in Sci Fi from that perspective it seems.
Almost. I think I was being a bit sarcastic too. Unironically, Interstellar is so bad that it works better if you totally change the genre and pretend it's e.g. a Bollywood attempt at Hindu evangelism, with occasional input from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar to make it sound more honest.
Less unironically, I've noted most time travel movies aren't about time travel at all but about multiverse bifurcation. The plot is trying to make a point that doesn't care if the time travel makes sense (e.g. Looper). Star Trek: TNG would routinely have a separate team of plot writers and tech consultants, and when the plot writers wanted something to force the characters to act a certain way they'd just leave a slug in the script for the tech team to fill in as they saw fit, and then the techs would invent something mostly consistent for Geordi to say that was both transparent-sounding and opaque at the same time. (I think the franchise jumped the shark about when Kirk and McCoy climbed onto Spock who had the only pair of gravity boots and they turned them into upward jets and then shot past a whole series of numbered decks that the Enterprise never really had before, including two that had the same number because the same shot made it into the final cut twice.)
So, with total irony, bite my tongue because planted firmly in my cheek, the link was when my office was first authorized to disclose how time travel really works, and was received quietly as the Rangers intended. (checks watch) The second disclosure hasn't gone out yet.
What does that even mean?
Exactly. That's also the slogan of c/FlatEarth because "even" is a pun.
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.
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 ....
Wow, I just read the Wiki on The Black Hole. What a great little cult classic. Also ridiculous, but honestly less so than Interstellar IMO. Thanks for the reference.
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.
I hear you. Time travel can be cool to think about but I think it is difficult for a movie to do it well. In my experience, movies generally (1) try too hard to explain the physics of how they are time traveling and (2) allow for so much freedom in the time travel that the plot becomes amorphous. In all seriousness, using a DeLorean with 1.21 gigawatts (mispronounced "jiggawats" of course) might be the best explanation for time travel of any movie.
But overall, I think my objection to Interstellar was that it was shilled in liberal circles as this "physically accurate movie that used real theoretical physicists as consultants." Its "physics" was about as realistic as Star Wars. I mean, the worm hole is "behind Saturn"? What does that even mean? It follows Saturn's orbit around the sun, but it doesn't orbit Saturn itself like all the moons and rings do? I guess since we have never seen a worm hole, no one can say for sure that this makes no sense...
So I think it is just a matter of interest and philosophy. SwampRanger is more interested in Sci Fi from that perspective it seems. Mostly as it functions as a morality and even religious allegory. So I understand that. My issue is that I love math and science so these movies always drive me bonkers.
I think OP's point in this post was making fun of the "believe science" people, who are generally liberals. OP disputes the globe model of the earth, I know this because he told me. He may be surprised to read this, but when it comes to posts like this one here, I actually agree with his main position. I.e., that people nowadays just "believe science." The reason why I have given the flat earthers much more time than I should have was because in my opinion, there should be nothing wrong with challenging the globe model or anything else in science. My problem is that most of these people have already made up their minds. They dispute the globe and there is no evidence that can sway them. But I like the challenge of flat earth theory, just like I like to hear why the moon landing was actually impossible.
I am sure that most of my liberal friends who loved Interstellar will never watch a flat earth documentary and work through their arguments one by one. Fundamentally, when they answer the FE argument that the oceans should fly off the ball that "they don't because of gravity," they are fitting exactly what FE people accuse them of. Because none of them can actually calculate what the centrifugal effect is at the equator.
Thanks for your input, I wish I was more advanced with math and science but I do find it fascinating and love thinking about the possibilities. Your arguments and viewpoints are very welcome with me.
I hadn't thought about the politics in the movie or how it was received, I really like any time travel possibilities tho.
Almost. I think I was being a bit sarcastic too. Unironically, Interstellar is so bad that it works better if you totally change the genre and pretend it's e.g. a Bollywood attempt at Hindu evangelism, with occasional input from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar to make it sound more honest.
Less unironically, I've noted most time travel movies aren't about time travel at all but about multiverse bifurcation. The plot is trying to make a point that doesn't care if the time travel makes sense (e.g. Looper). Star Trek: TNG would routinely have a separate team of plot writers and tech consultants, and when the plot writers wanted something to force the characters to act a certain way they'd just leave a slug in the script for the tech team to fill in as they saw fit, and then the techs would invent something mostly consistent for Geordi to say that was both transparent-sounding and opaque at the same time. (I think the franchise jumped the shark about when Kirk and McCoy climbed onto Spock who had the only pair of gravity boots and they turned them into upward jets and then shot past a whole series of numbered decks that the Enterprise never really had before, including two that had the same number because the same shot made it into the final cut twice.)
So, with total irony, bite my tongue because planted firmly in my cheek, the link was when my office was first authorized to disclose how time travel really works, and was received quietly as the Rangers intended. (checks watch) The second disclosure hasn't gone out yet.
Exactly. That's also the slogan of c/FlatEarth because "even" is a pun.
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.