- #281
tionis
Gold Member
- 459
- 67
All I'm saying is that advanced aliens should not be constrained by our current understanding of physics. If bulk physics was good enough for Kip Thorne, it's good enough for me.
tionis said:They evolved and now travel through the bulk. Just like we are going to evolve into bulk beings. I saw it in a movie recently.
enorbet said:Since I have yet to see Interstellar , I had to google this to make any sense of that "bulk" to which you were alluding.
enorbet said:The fact remains that even if safe, instantaneous travel were possible, there exists little reason to single out and visit Earth.
I admire kip Thorne as much as anyone else, but has it crossed your mind that "bulk paycheques" was more of a factor than "bulk physics"?tionis said:If bulk physics was good enough for Kip Thorne, it's good enough for me.
Okay, I'll accept that.tionis said:I don't think he would deliberately allow bad physics in his movie, so no.
Then? where we can see those images? Is like I said, if I have the faster computer in the world, I would be able to make better images of black holes.. But I don't show nothing.tionis said:"Our team of four here at the UA can produce visuals of a black hole that are more scientifically accurate in a few seconds,"
tionis said:Yes, but in the movie they say that “Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space.” Maybe the advanced aliens just target those planets where higher forms of consciousness evolved which they can somehow perceive leaking into the bulk.
Bandersnatch said:Jesus, phinds. Where have you been these past few weeks?Interstellar
AngelLestat said:Then? where we can see those images? Is like I said, if I have the faster computer in the world, I would be able to make better images of black holes.. But I don't show nothing.
enorbet said:The elevation of Love to something so vast, powerful, and fundamental is just absurd IMHO, and commonly used by Hollywood for the heart-warming "Aww Factor". It most certainly is not Physics, let alone Science, and highly suspect even as Science Fiction.
Love is essentially what we, mostly as individuals, value highest, a top ten of likes (Agape, Philia, Storge), with the added wrinkle in most mammals of sexual attraction if we're talking about Romantic Love (Eros). Since one individual's Love can be in direct contradiction with another's, it can spawn hatred (even homicide), it's direct opposite. So it can be seen that Love is undefinable as singularly benevolent and good. It is common that it is subjective as well or there wouldn't be so much Art about Unrequited Love.
Additionally, in common use it is almost entirely anthropomorphic. While it may be true that canines, elephants, etc. mourn the loss of a group member, and pets crave affection, it is also likely true that Antelope love munching grass, while Lions love munching Antelope, an apparent conundrum, especially for the Antelope.
I just don't see any possibility for Universality and a clear message that can be perceived by anyone, even among a specific species, all of which evolved on one planet's ecosystem.
As for actual bad physics, many renowned scientists are willing to make compromises especially in the field of "docu-tainment" and certainly in pure entertainment, if it can be shown that it might increase it's audience size or acceptance. An example of this would be Neil deGrasse Tyson's acceptance of characterizing the Big Bang as an explosion in the Cosmos reboot.
To me all this "Bulk stuff" is pure speculative Romance without even a shred of evidence. Interesting. Fun. But a plot device, nonetheless... a modern "Deus ex Machina" at best.
Is that link a joke?? that is the image of a black hole with more quality than the movie? And they use a supercomputer to obtain a blur picture of 30px * 30px??tionis said:Visit the Event Horizon Telescope site to see a few images:http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/science/general_relativity.html
Scientist don't usually share their simulations with the public until they have published them in a paper for peer review. They sometimes also require authorization from whoever is funding the project (usually the government) before posting any images done on supercomputers 'cause it uses the same code they use for modelling nuclear weapons and other classified stuff. I visited a university lab once where they keep one of these supercomputers, and there was a huge sign above the door that you would see on you way out that read '' DO NOT DISCUSS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION''
X-men is base in nothing. Wormholes are base in GR, of course we need an unified theory to be sure first, but by now.. is the best speculation that we have.enorbet said:These movies are speculative fiction or in the case of X-Men, comic book fantasy. Nobody knows if wormholes exist let alone can be navigated and most assuredly not to a predetermined destination. It is complicated and not at all within "modern understanding of physics". It is a plot device, pure and simple. I salute your imagination but please find the border between fantasy > speculation > and Science. This is exactly why this thread is called "spectacularly stupid movie". I happen to think that might be a bit harsh, but not far off.
AngelLestat said:Is that link a joke?? that is the image of a black hole with more quality than the movie? And they use a supercomputer to obtain a blur picture of 30px * 30px??
One more thing, if they can not share the info from their research, then they need to close their mounth instead to brag without show nothing.
Gravity said:The thing I was pleased to hear about with Interstellar was an accurate portrayal of a wormhole (a sphere), so why was a hollow half-sphere used instead? Am I missing something?