Here, let's clear some things up for you since you're not only butthurt, but refuse even the most simple mathematical theories.

In 1912 Einstein predicted that gravity is a product of huge bodies, like Earth, bending space-time. The typical illustration is a heavy ball placed on a rubber sheet. The sheet bends to the weight of the ball and stretches time out.
On Earth the effect is minimal, adding just a few microseconds a day to the time of space. Although it does mean that time is moving ever so slightly more quickly in a penthouse compared to a basement. Consequently GPS satellites orbiting the Earth need to be adjusted to take into account that they are moving through time slightly more quickly – 40 microseconds a day - than a person with a Sat Nav on earth.

Compared with other bodies in the universe, Earth is quite small and so the time shift is minimal.
However bodies with more mass have a bigger impact on time. A neutron star for example is so dense that it slows time by a few hours. At the surface of a black hole time is slowed to a halt.
What is even more extraordinary is that space is bending into a different dimension, somewhere that is not part of universe – known to astrophysicists as ‘the bulk.’

Miller’s planet is as close to the huge black hole Gargantua as it can be without getting sucked in. The black hole is estimated to have a mass of 100 million Suns, and spinning at near to its maximum speed. While unlikely to happen in nature, the effect would mean that anyone on that planet would age just one hour while those outside of the black hole’s pull, like Romilly, would age seven years.

Tidal forces will kill long before any smashing takes place.

That's assuming you make it past all the X-rays and shit being generated by the stuff falling into the singularity.

If you can accept 5th dimensional beings able to manipulate gravity and make wormholes, it isn't that big of a stretch to allow the placement of several other black holes there. The entire system seemed somewhat artificially made to me.

wrong terminal velocity. Sound barrier is also independent of terminal velocity and has nothing to do with anything.

Skydivers encounter the terminal velocity of a falling object in earth's atmosphere, have have long before Einstein came on the scene. This terminal velocity is the point where gravity and dynamic pressures become balanced and you can no longer accelerate. (Different objects have different terminal velocities due to shape, density, and other factors)

The terminal velocity of the speed of light is a different thing, it is a terminal velocity because of the infinite mass issue.

The Roche limit of a supermassive black hole is not the same as a "normal" smaller one. You are obviously correct that Miller's planet would be orbiting Gargantua at a large fraction of C. I think the example I saw used was something like 1 orbit every 1.75 hours or so. "The waves on Miller's planet are due to the planet rocking back and forth slightly, while still being overall tidally locked to Gargantua. A combination of the ocean sloshing over the crust of Miller's planet and tsunamis from "millerquakes" due to the crust of the planet being deformed as it rocks are responsible for the extreme size of the waves."

The book also talks about the radiation.
"Gargantua's accretion disk was purposefully designed to be "anemic". It is relatively cold, allowing it to radiate mostly visible light (rather than gamma rays); hence, the Endurance doesn't need radiation shielding. It is also not very dense, so it is mostly confined in an equatorial orbit and does not present a navigational hazard to the Endurance (Mann's planet orbits at considerable inclination to Gargantua's plane of rotation, so the Endurance spends negligible time in the accretion disk while it is doing the slingshot maneuver at the end."

That being said I still agree that the lack of particle and radiation shielding would quickly become and issue especially when traveling a significant fraction of C.

This is the best debate since "my .45 kills souls 'cuz 9mm sucks hitlers cock" type threads!

Aside from all the personal attacks and butt hurting, the arguments have been amusing. The movie was entertaining, and laid out scientific concepts that were fun to visualize but improbable in actuality. Just as every Star Wars movie or Firefly episode watched, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy them for what they are: an amalgamation of Hollywood-science and great fiction telling. I liked that Nolan tried to keep the special effects as analog as possible; most scenes it worked great, while other constructs (like TARS) looked too hokey for me. Seriously, they have an AI with humor parameters, but it's physical realization is limited to a metallic 4x4 plank body?

The pacing was a little slow in the beginning, picked up in the middle, and started to run towards a cliff at the end with the video montages. I get the whole "Eureka" bit with Murphy was an homage to 20th century scientific discoveries/explorers, but it looked cheesy and could've been presented better.

5th Dimension beings? A necessary plot device, but still weird. I suppose the whole, "One man's unexplainable is another man's god" type of thing.

As far as the whole man falling through a black hole thing and surviving, there is a theory that postulates that rather than attacking the blackhole from its event horizon (in parallel to its circular plane) and sucked in/ripped asunder from time-space, one could survive transit by approaching it from above i.e. like jumping into the eye of a hurricane from directly above it. It's just a theory, so no math proofs necessary

7/10
-no guns
-no boobies
-Hollywood anti-human nonsense
+no scientologists (maybe)
+creative old school effects usage  

Did you miss the part on the last page where I did the math for the mass induced time dilation you describe and  the scenario is laughably impossible?

And, if you actually understood the problems involved, you would know the orbital velocity of Millerland is just as important as its proximity to Gargantua, and since its orbital velocity must be a significant fraction of c, the scenario is even more laughable when velocity is considered as a factor.

The scenario doesn't work. It's junk science.


But have no fear! Religions with irrational beliefs have been founded on crappy science fiction before, just look at Scientology.

For $150,000 I'll tell you have to build a tesseract so you can communicate with the future-humans of five dimensions.

the event horizon is a 3D construct, i.e. a sphere around the black hole.

The thing is I like the movie.

But it's pretty obvious that both the movie and apparently the book require a suspension of real physics to allow the plot to advance.

But according to the Church of Interstelology, THE BOOK IS REAL SCIENCE AND 100% POSSIBLE!

That's not really my point. Even if you have a fantasy movie with vampires and hobbits, if the hero pulls a spellbook out of his cloak at the end, that spellbook needs to be seen put in his pack or mentioned or something earlier on.  Like batman's amazing utility belt, such sudden saves detract from the story.

Some of you people need to play KSP

I'm assuming all the people that hated Interstellar also hated 2001?

I didn't read the last page. Also your spiel about orbital velocity is fine and all, in fact I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have to remember it's just a movie. Never did it say that everything was supposed to be equivocal to real life. You made a comment about how it didn't make sense that they aged differently, and I explained that to you. While you hoot and holler about orbital velocity, don't forget about the very basis of space time and how gravity warps it in weird ways under different circumstances.

I didn't hate it, but it's far from a great movie. Lots of implausibilities and devices that took me out of the story, some not-so-great performances, and the jump-cutting that made Inception awesome does not work in this film.




 

The math you did relies on an assumption that the angular momentum of the black hole is zero. I already told you this affects the calculation but you disregarded my statement. Since you apparently know more then Kip Thorne does about astrophysics I will concede the point.

I believe Cooper did mention something about using a Neutron star to slingshot around. I can't answer why more wasn't left in the movie other then it was already nearly 3 hours long. I am only relaying what I have heard is in the book showing it is possible. When 5th dimensional beings are producing gravity anomalies on earth and throughout the rest of the movie. Another black hole which is a just a basically just a big gravity anomaly being in the right spot didn't seem to be that big of deal.

I dug the shit out of2001.

Of course. I guess my points are more along the lines of screenwriting and writing techniques and writing conventions rather than the appropriate placement of black holes. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on that, but I thought the writing for the movie a bit...sloppy.

No, I liked 2001 and 2010 which is why I wasn't exactly thrilled with Interstellar as the writers "borrowed" quite heavily from 2001/2010.

 

Probably smart, he's arguing out his asshole now. There's more to it than orbital velocity..

This is all besides the fact that it was a Science Fiction Movie

Rotating the black hole, especially at the ridiculous velocities claimed, does not make the scenario more plausible, but less. My math is an unrealistic "best case scenario" and what we see in the movie still doesn't work.

Are you trying to turn the planet Millerland into a gamma ray burst? Or place the entire system as shown into even more ridiculous relative velocities, requiring even more ridiculous acceleration from the Endurance and her parasite craft?

I'm sure the black hole was 6,000 years old and its ergosphere was put there by the tesseract-devil to test our faith.


When an orbital navigation scenario involves extreme relative velocities the solution is not angular momentum of the host body combined with frame dragging. That makes things worse.

I meant to reference the rotating circular disc outside of the event horizon, I think it's called the ergosphere or something like it.

Show your math, then. I'd love to see actual math that in any way makes what was seen in Interstellar plausible.

It shouldn't be hard. Human knowledge for most of the math involved is nearly a century old...

The Kerr metric is probably where you need to start. I'll wait.

More boobs isn't a bad thing.



 

There were no boobs in the film. Even the female astronaut in the movie was dressed in such a way that she could pass for a male metrosexual hipster.

There were plenty of 'splosions, though.


Needed more Cooper shooting the black hole with his 1911.

You say borrowed....I say payed homage to.

The complaint about not enough enough delta-v early in the movie and then lifting a suborbital object(which shouldn't have been in the first place) and then magically reaching escape velocity, pissed me off.

Calculate a gravity assist and park a ship in orbit over a planet orbiting a black hole? Check. Calculating the delta-v needed to go back into a stable orbit? Sorry, that feature is not available.
I've played enough KSP to know that is not how it works.(And I've read enough on space flight and orbital mechanics in my spare time)

lol @ this thread

I thought it was an awesome flick and a great way to burn some time this afternoon

You think HS grads understand these concepts?

 

Interstellar II - Now with 100% scientific accuracy!

- Humans blast into space and enter hibernation
- Nothing happens for 1000 years
- Humanity goes extinct on Earth
- Crew wakes up and lands
- We fucked up, picked wrong planet
- Everyone dies

The End

The hibernation part isn't realistic either.




I'm fine with a movie being unrealistic, I am not fine with people claiming it is some sort of scientific gospel (which there is a lot of for Interstellar).

Yeah you've got quite the crusade going. Keep on fighting the good fight.



 

Criticizes movie based on his understanding of Delta-V.

Doesn't understand Delta-V Budget.

Dude why do you have such a huge thorn up your ass about this. It's a movie. You asked about one particular part and I told you. I'm not conjuring up some math equation that you likely wouldn't understand any more than I would just because you're upset about some unpossible events in a science fiction movie. Put the cheetohs down, wipe the sweat off your chin and fucking relax. Find something better to put this energy towards other than arguing over what happened in a movie. Nobody cares if you didn't like parts of a movie, honestly..  

2001 is a real sci-fi movie. One of the best ever made.

Explain



 

Agreed and I agree with Navydoc and Swingset about 2010 as well.

Both were better than Interstellar imo.

This. I enjoyed the movie and would watch it again on bluray