- #36
Bandersnatch
Science Advisor
- 3,492
- 3,018
Latin for my fault. It's from:OmCheeto said:Does anyone know what "mea culpa" means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiteor
Latin for my fault. It's from:OmCheeto said:Does anyone know what "mea culpa" means?
Physics doesn't suddenly change like a knife's edge near the event horizon.hankaaron said:1. Being anywhere near a few billion miles of a black hole- much less surviving one.
In another discussion on this forum, I was told, to my annoyance, that you basically aren't allowed to even THINK about what is happening inside an event horizon. Given that, it seems to me that neither can you criticize a movie's speculation about same.2. Escaping a black hole.
The Saturn V rocket was needed to reach the wormhole in the outer solar system. The three planets near the black hole were much closer together.3. They need a Saturn V rocket to escape Earth's gravity. But have no problem leaving in a small shuttle craft from the surface of a planet (on the other side of the wormhole) with 130 percent of Earth's gravity.
NASA's location was so remote that they disbelieve anyone could randomly find them. The scene you described isn't in the actual movie, just the previews.4. In the movie NASA is a stealth organization. People have been led to believe that the moon landings were faked and that NASA had been disbanded decades ago. However this stealth NASA has no problem launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of populated areas. There's even a scene where Cooper’s (Matthew McConaughey) family watches the launching of his rocket from their farmhouse.
It is the nature of the medium that someone has to play cabbagehead for the audience. I don't like it either, but a movie that only PF members could understand would bomb at the box office.5. Apparently during Cooper's training no one bothered to ask if he knew anything about wormholes.
Human beings have emotions. Also, Cooper was unsure what the rules were and was trying different strategies. Was he dead and a ghost? Could history be changed?6. The movie has one of those chicken or the egg plot devices where Cooper (near the film's end) uses gravity to move books and manipulate dust to send coded messages to himself and his daughter. But wait, that’s not the worst part.
One message is “Stay”. It’s a message for him not to accept the mission and leave Earth and his family. But the other message is the coordinates to the secret NASA base. But he wanted to send messages to stay on earth, then why the hell would he also send himself the location to NASA.
Hint: Why isn't the Earth sucked into the sun? A man-made wormhole is not the same thing as a black hole.7. A wormhole is barely just outside of the planet Saturn’s orbit. Just on the other side of the wormhole is a supermassive black hole. Why the gaseous planet isn’t sucked into the wormhole is a question Kip Thorne should answer.Cooper
There’s a lot more than that. Including one of the worst lines in a Hollywood movie since “Love is never having to say you’re sorry”.
GTOM said:Those who liked it, so didnt you think, the conversation lines was so forced, as the Plait review wrote?
(Well about the inside of the event horizont, i surely don't expect anything but Hawking radiation to come out, i don't expect time travel or things like that neither, but in an SF you can speculate about such stuff.)
There were some really bad moments, in particular when Anne Hathaway talked about love, and when Matt Damon talked about evolution. But I think most of the remaining dialogue was OK.GTOM said:Those who liked it, so didnt you think, the conversation lines was so forced, as the Plait review wrote?
You have a point there. I've been thinking that it's not obvious that a pilot would understand that the entrance to a wormhole is spherical, but this particular pilot must have been told what to expect.Algr said:the folded paper explanation. Cooper should have been telling this to his kids, not learning about it on the ship - but that would have made the movie even longer, so I guess the nature of the medium needs compromise.
I've seen comments like that from time to time. I strongly disagree with that view. The same solution (of Einstein's equation) that describes the exterior also describes the interior. If that's somehow completely invalid, then there's no reason to trust what the solution says about the outside either, since this is part of the same solution.Algr said:In another discussion on this forum, I was told, to my annoyance, that you basically aren't allowed to even THINK about what is happening inside an event horizon.
Didn't they ditch the rocket much earlier? Like, as soon as they had escaped Earth's gravitational pull? This thing does seem like a plot hole to me. Also, if the planets are so close together, how is one of them so close the the event horizon that time is dilated by a factor of more than 8000, and the others have negligible gravitational time dilation?Algr said:The Saturn V rocket was needed to reach the wormhole in the outer solar system. The three planets near the black hole were much closer together.
Earth doesn't fall into the sun because even though it's falling towards the sun, it has such a high speed in the "sideways" direction that it keeps missing the sun. Earth isn't broken into pieces which are then sucked into the sun, because the tidal forces from the sun are negligible.Algr said:Hint: Why isn't the Earth sucked into the sun? A man-made wormhole is not the same thing as a black hole.
Fredrik said:Didn't they ditch the rocket much earlier? Like, as soon as they had escaped Earth's gravitational pull? This thing does seem like a plot hole to me. Also, if the planets are so close together, how is one of them so close the the event horizon that time is dilated by a factor of more than 8000, and the others have negligible gravitational time dilation?
The sound was horrible. Way too loud, and it drowned out the dialog. This movie needed a bunch more editing, there was so many poorly created scenes with sounds effects that overshadowed the movie. My wife and I had to wear ear plugs to make it watchable.hankaaron said:IMAX was great visually. Visually, its stunning. But the sound was a mix bag. Great for loud passages and effects, awful for dialog. It may still be worth seeing. I kind of expected to be disappointed- just not to the extent that I was.
This is not without precedent, though they have interpreted it rather broadly. It has been conjectured mathematically, that in the presence of certain configurations of black holes, the axes of space and time can be turned 90 degrees. This means, essentially, you can literally turn left or right and physically travel forward or backward in time.GTOM said:i don't expect time travel or things like that neither, but in an SF you can speculate about such stuff.)
Algr said:When they ditched the rocket, they may have been close to Earth, but they still had built up lots of speed. Alternatively, the rocket was cheaper than the fuel that the shuttle uses.
hankaaron said:I would give it a 3 out ten too as far as the story and script being fomulaic. But the screenplay is overall is awful. Please DaveC42693, tell me why they would need to use a Saturn V rocket to overcome Earth's gravity, but a simple shuttle leaves a planet with 130% Earth's gravity.
If NASA is supposed to be a secret organization, why are they launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of a midwest populated area?
Algr said:NASA's location was so remote that they disbelieve anyone could randomly find them. The scene you described isn't in the actual movie, just the previews.
hankaaron said:Why is it that Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) seemly doesn't age.
Why is it apparently easier to build a space station in outer space than it is to build bio domes on earth. [...]
Algr said:Given the context of who and where they were, it mostly seemed realistic. The only exception was when Cooper asks about the shape of the wormhole and gets the folded paper explanation. Cooper should have been telling this to his kids, not learning about it on the ship - but that would have made the movie even longer, so I guess the nature of the medium needs compromise.
DaveC426913 said:This is not without precedent, though they have interpreted it rather broadly. It has been conjectured mathematically, that in the presence of certain configurations of black holes, the axes of space and time can be turned 90 degrees. This means, essentially, you can literally turn left or right and physically travel forward or backward in time.
This is an over-simplistic viewpoint.hankaaron said:I would give it a 3 out ten too as far as the story and script being fomulaic. But the screenplay is overall is awful. Please DaveC42693, tell me why they would need to use a Saturn V rocket to overcome Earth's gravity, but a simple shuttle leaves a planet with 130% Earth's gravity.
Not "launching Saturn V rockets", launching THE rocket. The ONLY one. This is the culmination of NASA's mission. Time for secrecy is done.hankaaron said:If NASA is supposed to be a secret organization, why are they launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of a midwest populated area?
Reaching for straws.hankaaron said:Why is it that Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) seemly doesn't age.
The blight.hankaaron said:Why is it apparently easier to build a space station in outer space than it is to build bio domes on earth.
It's a story that asks questions, leaves some unanswered. The best stories don't spoon-feed you every concept, then wrap it up in the nice bow and roll the credits.Like I said before, this film takes risks. For some they will not pay off. It touches on things that people will find hard to accept. (love can cross space and time??) It doesn't spoon-feed you solutions. It doesn't pander to armchair critics, trying to hit every note that couldn't get played in a ~3 hour film. It requires a thoughtful mind to connect some of the dots.hankaaron said:This is simply not a thought out script.
You're right. It is. Before offering an opinion on the physics of the black hole in the film, you should read this. It points out two critical aspect that change everything:MattRob said:Back on-topic, this is very relevant.
And to re-iterate, it's[/PLAIN] very, very relevant.
I mean, not even relevant, but very important. Read it.
What's bugging me about this is the Δv necessary to cover the 'distance' of the 60000 factor time dilation. Compared to that the Δv cost of the SSTO launch of the ranger would be practically negligible. So it was like rowing on the sides of a carrier to start on it's way across the ocean.Algr said:When they ditched the rocket, they may have been close to Earth, but they still had built up lots of speed. Alternatively, the rocket was cheaper than the fuel that the shuttle uses.
Agreed.Rive said:However, it would be a waste if one stop discussing the scientific accuracies and inaccuracies in the film. What's makes this film worth to view is that there is much to discuss afterwards.
The film as a whole takes on the form of a causality loop. (The opposite of a paradox.) Communication to the past may be possible, but how could we today possibly know what the rules are to maintain such a thing? Say the wrong thing and you negate your existence. It seems likely that there would be complex and strange limits to what you can do. Imagine explaining to a caveman why we can fix a broken leg, but not cancer.jshrager said:1. Okay, so it's our future selves doing to our past selves, and in the future we can fold space time blah blah. So if we can do all that, why can't we just send a complete message down to our past selves to tell our past selves ... well, pretty much everything. Either you can communicate or not, and if you can't, fine, but if you can, and you can create wormholes, and control the inside of black holes, and so on, why do you have to communicate at 10 bits per century?!
The bright spots are hot, the dark areas are cold. The caveman would understand that part.2. Either the black hole destroys what goes into it, or not. So, we see BOTH a huge lava-flow of the accretion disk, which is presumably mashed and superheated ... everything in the area ... but somehow Coop's ship (not to mention Coop!) manage to ride the wave through the event horizon. If it was just black, that would have made more sense; as was, it was both hell and not hell. And if you want to use "we learned to control blah blah blah", see above.
The presentation of time can be strange in movies. They might have spent hours slowing down that station's rotation. But would showing it have made the movie better?3. Whereas I completely LOVED the David Bowman homage where Matt Damon blows himself, and the space station to smithereens, I thought that the whole "save" was ridiculous. Maybe you can match the spin of the station, but something with that much inertial could never ever even be stopped by the fine nav jets on the shuttle. It should have torn the air lock right off the top of the shuttle (or v.v.).
True, they ought to be Macs.4. Why, in whatever future year this is, is everything still being done on Lenovo laptops, fer k's sake!
Beats another Robby the Robot clone.5. The robots were, not to put too fine a point on it, mechanically ridiculous, not to mention that they (and everything else) had 24x80 green screen on them dumping linux whatnot for no reason at all.
Okay, I wasn't going to complain about high level plot, but I will:
6. If you're thinking of asking M. Night Shyamalan remake 2001...don't! (Yes, I know it was Christopher Nolan, nit MNS, but the stupid "ghost" plot device was so utterly transparent, just like every stupid MNS movie, that I almost laughed aloud in the theater...or perhaps groaned aloud, because they basically gave the plot away in the first five minutes. At least in The Sixth Sense, MNS hides the reveal fairly well. CN just basically wrote "It's your father sending you messages from the future." in giant red (gravitational) letters on the screen! totally ruined the whole thing for me!)
DaveC426913 said:Agreed.
Monsterboy said:'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?
It was a deduction. Obviously he can't be sure, but it makes sense. That was what his epiphany was, afterall - realizing that someone is leading them to safety from the future, just as he' doing with his daughter.hankaaron said:However, how Cooper comes to the quick conclusion that "They" are future humans is beyond me. When he said that I wished that smart-ass robot would have something like- "Oh yeah, what makes you think that Coop?
RoundEarVulcan said:Hi guys,
I hope everyone doesn't choose to gang up on me for this, but I actually really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't perfect, but not many movies are. If the physics behind it were 100% accurate, then it would be almost impossible to carry a storyline (or for the audience to understand). I enjoyed it - the visuals were good, the story was interesting enough and other than Matt Damon, I thought most of the characters were decent. I thought it was the most enjoyable big screen movie I've seen since Inception.
Just my 2 cents.
Monsterboy said:'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?
Mars and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be as bad or as good as any of those planets.