User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:16:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:18:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. So your argument is now that science as a whole is junk? Lets be clear here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:20:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's probably a better movie if you understand science and have a rudimentary comprehension of relativity.  This^^ Movie made perfect sense if you watched the whole thing all the way through. It was a good movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:22:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your argument is now that science as a whole is junk? Lets be clear here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. So your argument is now that science as a whole is junk? Lets be clear here. About as much as your argument is that "WELL!!!!!!! Teh EKSPERTZZZZZZ SAID SOOOO!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:38:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. Yep climate science and astrophysics are so intertwined that the politicization of one totally discredits the other. 
Let me guess, God did it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:42:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No spaghetti effect when he got close to the black hole? The movie was scientifically retarded. There was plenty of liberty taken with the science in the film, but this isn't necessarily an example. It's a common misconception that the event horizon demarks a point at which gravitational tidal forces are at their greatest. There isn't a cause/effect relationship between the two, though. Depending on the mass of the black hole tidal forces might be lethal to a person well within the event horizon or well outside of it. Seemingly paradoxically, the more massive a black hole the closer in those tidal forces become pronounced. So for a very large black hole, like the one at the center of our galaxy, the schwarzchild radius would be over 10 million kilometers, but the tidal forces that would produce stretching wouldn't occur till you were within a few thousand kilometers of the center.Ignoring the hellish radiation environment typically surrounding such a black hole, you could approach and even cross the event horizon without noticing. What happens beyond that is and will likely forever remain speculation. The interesting thing about the movie is that the science is generally well received by actual astrophysicists, ignored by the generally uneducated and decried by the guys how read a lot of Popular Science or play a lot of Kerbal Space Program. Does it really matter that some of the ships had implausible delta-v, when the movie gets so much else, stuff like relativity and the rarity of life supporting planets, right? The title wasn't 'Aerospace Engineering', after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:49:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being dropped into a black hole would stretch your body out into spaghetti. You would not survive. Of course a blach hole built by extra dimension humans might have a different effect. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:50:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean THEORETICAL PHYSICS doesn't have physical evidence to present to you.....so its all bunk? I think you really need to revisit the definition of the term THEORETICAL. You do know that a lot of what we take for granted now was based on purely theoretical evidence? Such as atomic particles, radio waves, nuclear physics, OXYGEN. Yes, you are right. Its all a conspiracy created by the Discovery Channel to sell advertising time. Its not as if there is a huge network of scientists, agencies, universities, etc. consistently reviewing, researching, and crediting or debunking these theories.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill definitely take the theories and presumptions of every theoretical physicist on Earth right now over yours. You can take whatever you want but theories and presumptions are, at the end of the day, only theories and presumptions. Of course if the producers of the Discovery Channel pay enough money somebody will come up with any theory they want, right? Just ask The Black Science Guy. He even admitted he made stuff up. For instance, I saw a show a few weeks ago about parallel universes. Not one iota of real evidence they exist but they managed to put together a show with about 50 commercials telling you how they might exist. We know very little about this universe and we sure as hell don't know anything of substance about black holes, singularities or wormholes. You know, the science assumptions of the commercial movie Interstellar. You mean THEORETICAL PHYSICS doesn't have physical evidence to present to you.....so its all bunk? I think you really need to revisit the definition of the term THEORETICAL. You do know that a lot of what we take for granted now was based on purely theoretical evidence? Such as atomic particles, radio waves, nuclear physics, OXYGEN. Yes, you are right. Its all a conspiracy created by the Discovery Channel to sell advertising time. Its not as if there is a huge network of scientists, agencies, universities, etc. consistently reviewing, researching, and crediting or debunking these theories. The fact that a spacecraft as portrayed in Interstellar would not have sufficient delta-V or acceleration (by >100 orders of magnitude) to experience the time dilation portrayed in the drop/return to the water-planet isn't theoretical physics. It's simple math. Have you heard about this cool new thing called Scientology? It's about these aliens that use 707s to travel between stars... You'll love it. Interstellar wasn't Science Fiction, it was Science Fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:51:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep climate science and astrophysics are so intertwined that the politicization of one totally discredits the other.
Let me guess, God did it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. Yep climate science and astrophysics are so intertwined that the politicization of one totally discredits the other.
Let me guess, God did it! Well, let's see, man goes through worm hole, explores multiple worlds, rides down into a singularity {completely unharmed mind you}, winds up in another dimension or universe or wtf ever and in all the vastness of multiple dimensions of multiple universes, winds up in some fucking cosmic library, looks through "the mirror" at his own library and with sheer force of will, moves items between them, thus turning out to be teh ghost in his own fucking machine. He was either the luckiest SOB in history or God did do it. I report, you decide. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:54:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About as much as your argument is that "WELL!!!!!!! Teh EKSPERTZZZZZZ SAID SOOOO!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. So your argument is now that science as a whole is junk? Lets be clear here. About as much as your argument is that "WELL!!!!!!! Teh EKSPERTZZZZZZ SAID SOOOO!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:56:30 PM EDT
[#11]
In this thread we learn who doesn't know what fiction means
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:56:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Being dropped into a black hole would stretch your body out into spaghetti. You would not survive. Of course a blach hole built by extra dimension humans might have a different effect. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:56:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, let's see, man goes through worm hole, explores multiple worlds, rides down into a singularity {completely unharmed mind you}, winds up in another dimension or universe or wtf ever and in all the vastness of multiple dimensions of multiple universes, winds up in some fucking cosmic library, looks through "the mirror" at his own library and with sheer force of will, moves items between them, thus turning out to be teh ghost in his own fucking machine. He was either the luckiest SOB in history or God did do it. I report, you decide. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:58:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Scientific evidence is not increasingly disproving the theory of black holes, and is instead leading us to the thought that they may actually be much more common that we ever thought. Saying they dont exist is ridiculous, when all the exidence states they have a very high probability of being real. As such black holes were theorized well before the evidence presented itself, just as wormholes and singularities are now. Even more ridiculous is the thought that a movie is terrible because they use scientific evidence as we have it now regarding natural phenomena we will likely never experience outside of the realm of theoretical physics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:  His first three points are factually correct. Scientific evidence is not increasingly disproving the theory of black holes, and is instead leading us to the thought that they may actually be much more common that we ever thought. Saying they dont exist is ridiculous, when all the exidence states they have a very high probability of being real. As such black holes were theorized well before the evidence presented itself, just as wormholes and singularities are now. Even more ridiculous is the thought that a movie is terrible because they use scientific evidence as we have it now regarding natural phenomena we will likely never experience outside of the realm of theoretical physics. All we have is indirect evidence that they exist and it is not ridiculous to say that we don't really know if they exist or not. I am not sure if there is a high probability or not. Nobody does. The trouble with things like this is we tend to quote current theories, based upon somewhat flimsy data, as fact when it is not warranted. One of the things that the science fiction writers and the Discovery Talking Heads always gloss over is that even if they do exist we have almost a zero knowledge of what they really are and the physics surrounding them. We sure as hell don't know enough about them to come up with the silliness that was passed off as science in the movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 5:59:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this thread we learn who doesn't know what fiction means ... and those who don't understand the difference between science fiction and outright fantasy. Here's the secret to Interstellar; God did it. It explains the whole movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:01:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Being dropped into a black hole would stretch your body out into spaghetti. You would not survive. Of course a blach hole built by extra dimension humans might have a different effect. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. Didn't think so. So how in the hell can you even begin to tell us how much velocity change an imaginary spaceship, in an imaginary universe, will need? Holy shit man, it's FAKE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:03:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... and those who don't understand the difference between science fiction and outright fantasy. Here's the secret to Interstellar; God did it. It explains the whole movie. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In this thread we learn who doesn't know what fiction means ... and those who don't understand the difference between science fiction and outright fantasy. Here's the secret to Interstellar; God did it. It explains the whole movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:03:28 PM EDT
[#18]
WHY do people ALWAYS try to characterize others' opinions? Are they from the other side of teh WURMWHOLE?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:09:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, let's see, man goes through worm hole, explores multiple worlds, rides down into a singularity {completely unharmed mind you}, winds up in another dimension or universe or wtf ever and in all the vastness of multiple dimensions of multiple universes, winds up in some fucking cosmic library, looks through "the mirror" at his own library and with sheer force of will, moves items between them, thus turning out to be teh ghost in his own fucking machine. He was either the luckiest SOB in history or God did do it. I report, you decide. Gee whiz, that shur wuz a purdie pitcher ya done posted up. Damn shame you cudn' cum up wif a real responce. Yu mus be wunadem dere fart smellers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:14:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that a spacecraft as portrayed in Interstellar would not have sufficient delta-V or acceleration (by >100 orders of magnitude) to experience the time dilation portrayed in the drop/return to the water-planet isn't theoretical physics. It's simple math. Have you heard about this cool new thing called Scientology? It's about these aliens that use 707s to travel between stars... You'll love it. Interstellar wasn't Science Fiction, it was Science Fantasy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ill definitely take the theories and presumptions of every theoretical physicist on Earth right now over yours. You can take whatever you want but theories and presumptions are, at the end of the day, only theories and presumptions. Of course if the producers of the Discovery Channel pay enough money somebody will come up with any theory they want, right? Just ask The Black Science Guy. He even admitted he made stuff up. For instance, I saw a show a few weeks ago about parallel universes. Not one iota of real evidence they exist but they managed to put together a show with about 50 commercials telling you how they might exist. We know very little about this universe and we sure as hell don't know anything of substance about black holes, singularities or wormholes. You know, the science assumptions of the commercial movie Interstellar. You mean THEORETICAL PHYSICS doesn't have physical evidence to present to you.....so its all bunk? I think you really need to revisit the definition of the term THEORETICAL. You do know that a lot of what we take for granted now was based on purely theoretical evidence? Such as atomic particles, radio waves, nuclear physics, OXYGEN. Yes, you are right. Its all a conspiracy created by the Discovery Channel to sell advertising time. Its not as if there is a huge network of scientists, agencies, universities, etc. consistently reviewing, researching, and crediting or debunking these theories. The fact that a spacecraft as portrayed in Interstellar would not have sufficient delta-V or acceleration (by >100 orders of magnitude) to experience the time dilation portrayed in the drop/return to the water-planet isn't theoretical physics. It's simple math. Have you heard about this cool new thing called Scientology? It's about these aliens that use 707s to travel between stars... You'll love it. Interstellar wasn't Science Fiction, it was Science Fantasy. Virtually all sci-fi is like that, isn't it? Movies (sci-fi or otherwise) tend to be full of shit that isn't realistic in the slightest. Nobody seems to care that Marty in Back to the Future should have found himself floating in space, or that the space battles in Star Wars make about as much scientific sense as a Saturday morning cartoon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:20:56 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Virtually all sci-fi is like that, isn't it? Movies (sci-fi or otherwise) tend to be full of shit that isn't realistic in the slightest. Nobody seems to care that Marty in Back to the Future should have found himself floating in space, or that the space battles in Star Wars make about as much scientific sense as a Saturday morning cartoon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ill definitely take the theories and presumptions of every theoretical physicist on Earth right now over yours. You can take whatever you want but theories and presumptions are, at the end of the day, only theories and presumptions. Of course if the producers of the Discovery Channel pay enough money somebody will come up with any theory they want, right? Just ask The Black Science Guy. He even admitted he made stuff up. For instance, I saw a show a few weeks ago about parallel universes. Not one iota of real evidence they exist but they managed to put together a show with about 50 commercials telling you how they might exist. We know very little about this universe and we sure as hell don't know anything of substance about black holes, singularities or wormholes. You know, the science assumptions of the commercial movie Interstellar. You mean THEORETICAL PHYSICS doesn't have physical evidence to present to you.....so its all bunk? I think you really need to revisit the definition of the term THEORETICAL. You do know that a lot of what we take for granted now was based on purely theoretical evidence? Such as atomic particles, radio waves, nuclear physics, OXYGEN. Yes, you are right. Its all a conspiracy created by the Discovery Channel to sell advertising time. Its not as if there is a huge network of scientists, agencies, universities, etc. consistently reviewing, researching, and crediting or debunking these theories. The fact that a spacecraft as portrayed in Interstellar would not have sufficient delta-V or acceleration (by >100 orders of magnitude) to experience the time dilation portrayed in the drop/return to the water-planet isn't theoretical physics. It's simple math. Have you heard about this cool new thing called Scientology? It's about these aliens that use 707s to travel between stars... You'll love it. Interstellar wasn't Science Fiction, it was Science Fantasy. Virtually all sci-fi is like that, isn't it? Movies (sci-fi or otherwise) tend to be full of shit that isn't realistic in the slightest. Nobody seems to care that Marty in Back to the Future should have found himself floating in space, or that the space battles in Star Wars make about as much scientific sense as a Saturday morning cartoon. Movie sci-fi tends to be absolute horseshit. There are some science fiction books that are quite well grounded in science. But those wouldn't make the Ow! My balls! crowd in GD feel smart, so they aren't made into movies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:27:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
can you prove to me that the earth revolves around the sun? I mean you, not stealing someone who already proved it? Didn't think so. So how in the hell can you even begin to tell us how much velocity change an imaginary spaceship, in an imaginary universe, will need? Holy shit man, it's FAKE! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Being dropped into a black hole would stretch your body out into spaghetti. You would not survive. Of course a blach hole built by extra dimension humans might have a different effect. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. Didn't think so. So how in the hell can you even begin to tell us how much velocity change an imaginary spaceship, in an imaginary universe, will need? Holy shit man, it's FAKE! The movie establishes that the propulsion technology shown in use by humanity on Earth is fairly close to what we have now. We know thrust is rather limited by the fact the NORAD-spaceship facility could not be put into orbit (key point in the plot of the film, remember?) and we know their delta-v is fairly limited from time it took them to reach Saturn. These two limitations conflict with the massive acceleration and delta-v requirements for the time-dilation inducing drop to the water planet shown shortly thereafter. Maybe you should pay attention to the film if you want to defend it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:32:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The movie establishes that the propulsion technology shown in use by humanity on Earth is fairly close to what we have now. We know thrust is rather limited by the fact the NORAD-spaceship facility could not be put into orbit (key point in the plot of the film, remember?) and we know their delta-v is fairly limited from time it took them to reach Saturn. These two limitations conflict with the massive acceleration and delta-v requirements for the time-dilation inducing drop to the water planet shown shortly thereafter. Maybe you should pay attention to the film if you want to defend it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Being dropped into a black hole would stretch your body out into spaghetti. You would not survive. Of course a blach hole built by extra dimension humans might have a different effect. The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. Didn't think so. So how in the hell can you even begin to tell us how much velocity change an imaginary spaceship, in an imaginary universe, will need? Holy shit man, it's FAKE! The movie establishes that the propulsion technology shown in use by humanity on Earth is fairly close to what we have now. We know thrust is rather limited by the fact the NORAD-spaceship facility could not be put into orbit (key point in the plot of the film, remember?) and we know their delta-v is fairly limited from time it took them to reach Saturn. These two limitations conflict with the massive acceleration and delta-v requirements for the time-dilation inducing drop to the water planet shown shortly thereafter. Maybe you should pay attention to the film if you want to defend it? I propose we agree to disagree  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:36:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The bigger the black hole, the weaker the tidal forces, no spaghettification. So now we need a extra-big-ass black hole, but yet they are shown completing orbits around this black hole in a short time period and making instant, massive changes to their orbital eccentricity on a ship with a small amount of delta-v and acceleration. Didn't think so. So how in the hell can you even begin to tell us how much velocity change an imaginary spaceship, in an imaginary universe, will need? Holy shit man, it's FAKE! The movie establishes that the propulsion technology shown in use by humanity on Earth is fairly close to what we have now. We know thrust is rather limited by the fact the NORAD-spaceship facility could not be put into orbit (key point in the plot of the film, remember?) and we know their delta-v is fairly limited from time it took them to reach Saturn. These two limitations conflict with the massive acceleration and delta-v requirements for the time-dilation inducing drop to the water planet shown shortly thereafter. Maybe you should pay attention to the film if you want to defend it? I propose we agree to disagree
Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:40:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:51:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree
Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? There's a difference between works that require technology we don't have, and works that require technology we do understand to do things it cannot. Don't violate thermodynamics with new technologies. Don't violate other basic laws with technology we don't have. Don't expect real technologies we do have to do things we absolutely know they cannot. Keep the capabilities of your fictitious technologies internally consistent within your works. Those are some good ground rules for actual science fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:52:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw it yesterday night...I liked it until the very end with coop and the bookshelf...I thought that was so stupid. I was laughing very loud in the theater. The bookshelf was like the GUI on your desktop. Abstraction and metaphor so higher dimensional beings could interact with Coop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:54:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree
Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? I went to this flick with the highest of hopes as I am a sci-fi junkie and a fan of the star. I was really hoping to get my rocks off on a 1st class sci-fi flick as they are rare. The jumps they made in the science dept were just too much and the plot and overall length left me with blueballs, crabs and a 7 year itch. 
And then I come in here and gotta listen to a bunch of shit from the "smart" ones. LOL GD delivers again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:55:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bookshelf was like the GUI on your desktop. Abstraction and metaphor so higher dimensional beings could interact with Coop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I saw it yesterday night...I liked it until the very end with coop and the bookshelf...I thought that was so stupid. I was laughing very loud in the theater. The bookshelf was like the GUI on your desktop. Abstraction and metaphor so higher dimensional beings could interact with Coop. Oddly I had no problem with that whole thing. Though the use of a tesseract was a bit silly... Someone doesn't understand that the fourth dimension of a tesseract is not related to the additional dimensions of reality suspected to exist as related to energy, time and space. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:55:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Does it really matter that some of the ships had implausible delta-v They had to be Nuke powered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:01:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They had to be Nuke powered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does it really matter that some of the ships had implausible delta-v They had to be Nuke powered. Still not good enough to explain the time dilation of the water-planet drop. It just doesn't work. And it cannot be explained away. If they had that sort of acceleration and delta-v, they should have made Saturn in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:35:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All we have is indirect evidence that they exist and it is not ridiculous to say that we don't really know if they exist or not. I am not sure if there is a high probability or not. Nobody does. The trouble with things like this is we tend to quote current theories, based upon somewhat flimsy data, as fact when it is not warranted. One of the things that the science fiction writers and the Discovery Talking Heads always gloss over is that even if they do exist we have almost a zero knowledge of what they really are and the physics surrounding them. We sure as hell don't know enough about them to come up with the silliness that was passed off as science in the movie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: His first three points are factually correct. Scientific evidence is not increasingly disproving the theory of black holes, and is instead leading us to the thought that they may actually be much more common that we ever thought. Saying they dont exist is ridiculous, when all the exidence states they have a very high probability of being real. As such black holes were theorized well before the evidence presented itself, just as wormholes and singularities are now. Even more ridiculous is the thought that a movie is terrible because they use scientific evidence as we have it now regarding natural phenomena we will likely never experience outside of the realm of theoretical physics. All we have is indirect evidence that they exist and it is not ridiculous to say that we don't really know if they exist or not. I am not sure if there is a high probability or not. Nobody does. The trouble with things like this is we tend to quote current theories, based upon somewhat flimsy data, as fact when it is not warranted. One of the things that the science fiction writers and the Discovery Talking Heads always gloss over is that even if they do exist we have almost a zero knowledge of what they really are and the physics surrounding them. We sure as hell don't know enough about them to come up with the silliness that was passed off as science in the movie. So what you want is for no one to ever make sci-fi movies involving anything unless we have locked fown all the facts concerning the science. Gotcha. Going to be some really boring movies once you become king. Interstellar used the best currently accepted theories for most of its plot. You are literally whining because they didnt solve the riddles of quantum physics and the universe itself before making a movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:40:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what you want is for no one to ever make sci-fi movies involving anything unless we have locked fown all the facts concerning the science. Gotcha. Going to be some really boring movies once you become king. Interstellar used the best currently accepted theories for most of its plot. You are literally whining because they didnt solve the riddles of quantum physics and the universe itself before making a movie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scientific evidence is not increasingly disproving the theory of black holes, and is instead leading us to the thought that they may actually be much more common that we ever thought. Saying they dont exist is ridiculous, when all the exidence states they have a very high probability of being real. As such black holes were theorized well before the evidence presented itself, just as wormholes and singularities are now. Even more ridiculous is the thought that a movie is terrible because they use scientific evidence as we have it now regarding natural phenomena we will likely never experience outside of the realm of theoretical physics. All we have is indirect evidence that they exist and it is not ridiculous to say that we don't really know if they exist or not. I am not sure if there is a high probability or not. Nobody does. The trouble with things like this is we tend to quote current theories, based upon somewhat flimsy data, as fact when it is not warranted. One of the things that the science fiction writers and the Discovery Talking Heads always gloss over is that even if they do exist we have almost a zero knowledge of what they really are and the physics surrounding them. We sure as hell don't know enough about them to come up with the silliness that was passed off as science in the movie. So what you want is for no one to ever make sci-fi movies involving anything unless we have locked fown all the facts concerning the science. Gotcha. Going to be some really boring movies once you become king. Interstellar used the best currently accepted theories for most of its plot. You are literally whining because they didnt solve the riddles of quantum physics and the universe itself before making a movie. Just keep on ignoring the delta-v and acceleration contradiction. Really simple stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:41:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About as much as your argument is that "WELL!!!!!!! Teh EKSPERTZZZZZZ SAID SOOOO!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the theoretical-science education value of Interstellar is limited. How doe sit do with regard to titties, chase scenes and explosions? Actually two scholarly papers have already been written based on the black hole they modeled in the movie. And man made global warming is constantly postulated as "settled science". If there is a fucking dollar to be made, I can get you a scientific paper on how the Earth is flat. So your argument is now that science as a whole is junk? Lets be clear here. About as much as your argument is that "WELL!!!!!!! Teh EKSPERTZZZZZZ SAID SOOOO!!!!! So all science is fake because you disagree with a single niche that is generally driven by politicism and industry? Got it. Great argument, by the way. They had a theoretical physicist on set but you diagree with him because of Al Gore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:45:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just keep on ignoring the delta-v and acceleration contradiction. Really simple stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scientific evidence is not increasingly disproving the theory of black holes, and is instead leading us to the thought that they may actually be much more common that we ever thought. Saying they dont exist is ridiculous, when all the exidence states they have a very high probability of being real. As such black holes were theorized well before the evidence presented itself, just as wormholes and singularities are now. Even more ridiculous is the thought that a movie is terrible because they use scientific evidence as we have it now regarding natural phenomena we will likely never experience outside of the realm of theoretical physics. All we have is indirect evidence that they exist and it is not ridiculous to say that we don't really know if they exist or not. I am not sure if there is a high probability or not. Nobody does. The trouble with things like this is we tend to quote current theories, based upon somewhat flimsy data, as fact when it is not warranted. One of the things that the science fiction writers and the Discovery Talking Heads always gloss over is that even if they do exist we have almost a zero knowledge of what they really are and the physics surrounding them. We sure as hell don't know enough about them to come up with the silliness that was passed off as science in the movie. So what you want is for no one to ever make sci-fi movies involving anything unless we have locked fown all the facts concerning the science. Gotcha. Going to be some really boring movies once you become king. Interstellar used the best currently accepted theories for most of its plot. You are literally whining because they didnt solve the riddles of quantum physics and the universe itself before making a movie. Just keep on ignoring the delta-v and acceleration contradiction. Really simple stuff. And here I was trying to figure out how they created the AI in TOR for real. Oh wait, its a movie. Not everything happened in real life. We all know you are smarter than everyone here and the writers of the movie, so obviously its impossible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:53:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this thread we learn who doesn't know what fiction means In this thread we learn who doesn't know what science fiction means. Science fiction is not space opera, fantasy, or love power. http://io9.com/interstellar-is-the-best-and-worst-space-opera-youll-ev-1654807305 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:55:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And here I was trying to figure out how they created the AI in TOR for real. Oh wait, its a movie. Not everything happened in real life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
And here I was trying to figure out how they created the AI in TOR for real. Oh wait, its a movie. Not everything happened in real life. If a movie is part outright fantasy, that's fine. Just don't go around claiming its the Gospel According to Hawking and bash the intellect of people who see flaws in the film. We all know you are smarter than everyone here Nope. and the writers of the movie, A retarded monkey is smarter than the people who wrote the script. That is the nature of mainstream films. so obviously its impossible. Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:57:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree
Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:03:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a difference between works that require technology we don't have, and works that require technology we do understand to do things it cannot. Don't violate thermodynamics with new technologies. Don't violate other basic laws with technology we don't have. Don't expect real technologies we do have to do things we absolutely know they cannot. Keep the capabilities of your fictitious technologies internally consistent within your works. Those are some good ground rules for actual science fiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm defending that it's fiction and not fact. You seem to be pushing that they didn't use enough fact for a fictional movie. I propose we agree to disagree
Fair enough. In my mind there is a clear line between science fiction and fantasy. I actually liked the movie, a lot. It's the claims by some that it is realistic or scientifically grounded that bother me, not the movie itself. It's a movie, not a presentation by Dr. Hawking. is there really a fine definition of science fantasy and science fiction? If you lived in the 1800's would you consider jules verne's works fiction or fantasy? There's a difference between works that require technology we don't have, and works that require technology we do understand to do things it cannot. Don't violate thermodynamics with new technologies. Don't violate other basic laws with technology we don't have. Don't expect real technologies we do have to do things we absolutely know they cannot. Keep the capabilities of your fictitious technologies internally consistent within your works. Those are some good ground rules for actual science fiction. Our ability to comprehend things around us is limited on what we think we know today. Just because our science today predicts that something can't be possible, does not mean we won't discover something else that will accomplish the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:04:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have a whole lot of 'splaining to do to 'splain away how somebody can fall into a black hole and live to tell about it. Ever hear of the concept of terminal velocity? Here on earth it is approximately 122 MPH with earth's measly gravity. In a black hole it would be about a trillion times faster. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's probably a better movie if you understand science and have a rudimentary comprehension of relativity. You mean like the part when the guy in the spacesuit falls into a black hole and winds up in some weird library? I missed that understanding of science and relativity when I took physics courses back in college. Hell, they even explained that part. Google tesseract (not the comic version) to understand what the library was. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile You have a whole lot of 'splaining to do to 'splain away how somebody can fall into a black hole and live to tell about it. Ever hear of the concept of terminal velocity? Here on earth it is approximately 122 MPH with earth's measly gravity. In a black hole it would be about a trillion times faster. Your false understanding of terminal velocity is the single most ironic thing I've read on arfcom since 1999 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:05:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a movie is part outright fantasy, that's fine. Just don't go around claiming its the Gospel According to Hawking and bash the intellect of people who see flaws in the film. Nope. A retarded monkey is smarter than the people who wrote the script. That is the nature of mainstream films. Yup. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And here I was trying to figure out how they created the AI in TOR for real. Oh wait, its a movie. Not everything happened in real life. If a movie is part outright fantasy, that's fine. Just don't go around claiming its the Gospel According to Hawking and bash the intellect of people who see flaws in the film. We all know you are smarter than everyone here Nope. and the writers of the movie, A retarded monkey is smarter than the people who wrote the script. That is the nature of mainstream films. so obviously its impossible. Yup. You must be a real pleasure to watch anything with. Somehow I doubt you have much company when watching movies, or otherwise doing anything at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:06:50 PM EDT
[#42]
I wonder if some of the people who didn't like this liked Fury due to its absolute realistic portrayal, even though one disabled tank can take out 300 crack SS troops, cause they forgot how to fight. I guess Fury was fantasy too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:15:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You must be a real pleasure to watch anything with. Somehow I doubt you have much company when watching movies, or otherwise doing anything at all. When I watch movies I, you know, watch them. That's how I pick up on things like contradictions. I saw Interstellar with a date, and have since seen another film with the company of two, so perhaps you should stop projecting? In case you missed it, I liked Interstellar, as a work of science fantasy. It's the idiots claiming it is realistic or scientifically valid that I am bashing, not the movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:17:26 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
tell me this...how is it that coop and the broad never aged?they were in a worm hole?i thought the whole crew went into the worm hole?it was waya,way,way far fetched.big disappointment...,.contact was way better! https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXZANfXawSYmW9CFtm0O8_C4D69GeiesyuJ3hH6k7XUq1hvz2o I thought this during the movie. Is that weird? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:23:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I watch movies I, you know, watch them. That's how I pick up on things like contradictions. I saw Interstellar with a date, and have since seen another film with the company of two, so perhaps you should stop projecting? In case you missed it, I liked Interstellar, as a work of science fantasy. It's the idiots claiming it is realistic or scientifically valid that I am bashing, not the movie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You must be a real pleasure to watch anything with. Somehow I doubt you have much company when watching movies, or otherwise doing anything at all. When I watch movies I, you know, watch them. That's how I pick up on things like contradictions. I saw Interstellar with a date, and have since seen another film with the company of two, so perhaps you should stop projecting? In case you missed it, I liked Interstellar, as a work of science fantasy. It's the idiots claiming it is realistic or scientifically valid that I am bashing, not the movie. Lol. If you say so. Most here are bashing: A) tard that think relativity isnt a real thing b) tard that thinks science is fake because of global warming c) tard that sat in the theater attempting real velocity calculations regarding descent on a planet with a black hole next to it. (And claims he did it with a date present) Nobody is claiming the movie was real. There is plenty to laugh at here though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:23:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Nolan's movies look really good, but he can't write. Momento was his best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:28:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v. Delta-v? Delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v! DEEEEEEELTAAAAAA VEEEEEEEEEEE! Really simple stuff. That's about what you look like right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:30:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. If you say so. Most here are bashing: A) tard that think relativity isnt a real thing b) tard that thinks science is fake because of global warming c) tard that sat in the theater attempting real velocity calculations regarding descent on a planet with a black hole next to it. (And claims he did it with a date present) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You must be a real pleasure to watch anything with. Somehow I doubt you have much company when watching movies, or otherwise doing anything at all. When I watch movies I, you know, watch them. That's how I pick up on things like contradictions. I saw Interstellar with a date, and have since seen another film with the company of two, so perhaps you should stop projecting? In case you missed it, I liked Interstellar, as a work of science fantasy. It's the idiots claiming it is realistic or scientifically valid that I am bashing, not the movie. Lol. If you say so. Most here are bashing: A) tard that think relativity isnt a real thing b) tard that thinks science is fake because of global warming c) tard that sat in the theater attempting real velocity calculations regarding descent on a planet with a black hole next to it. (And claims he did it with a date present) Actually, you don't need to do any calculations to know that a ship that requires years to reach Saturn isn't going to be able to subject itself to the time dilation seen in the water planet drop. It's blindingly obvious by many orders of magnitude to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject. But yeah, I'm the 'tard for knowing that off the top of my head. Whatever makes you feel better. Did you know there's another Dumb and Dumber movie in theaters? You should check it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:32:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's about what you look like right now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v. Delta-v? Delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v, delta-v! DEEEEEEELTAAAAAA VEEEEEEEEEEE! Really simple stuff. That's about what you look like right now. Because it's one of the major scientific sins of the movie, ignored by those who seem to think it is the Testament of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as given to the Prophet Hawking, Entropy Be Upon Him. And it has as much to do with acceleration as delta-v. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:35:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what you want is for no one to ever make sci-fi movies involving anything unless we have locked fown all the facts concerning the science. Gotcha. Going to be some really boring movies once you become king. Interstellar used the best currently accepted theories for most of its plot. You are literally whining because they didnt solve the riddles of quantum physics and the universe itself before making a movie. I love science fiction movies. However, it is worth commenting on the "science" in Interstellar because some people are taking it so seriously and trying to defend it in some way or another. Of course you are not one of them, are you? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
