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.

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.