lajoswinkler

From far away, when angular diameter of the star is insignificant, it looks like an extremely bright star. It does not suddenly turn brighter. It's a gradual increase of luminosity. From closer up, it does not look like what you've seen in documentaries. Giant stars are so huge that even if the ejecting matter was going at the speed of light, it would look (ignoring the c limit for observer, and appropriatelly dimmed) slow. Ejected highly radioactive plasma certainly doesn't go near light speed, so it's even slower. Days of primary explosion, then years of dimming and material cooling, forming a nice picture for everyone in the neighborhood. The explosion itself is like a slowly growing ball or bubble of extreme luminosity.

Something like that, yes. Similar thing happened when Bullock got tangled in the chords. She was in a linear motion. When the chords jerked, she went into rotational motion because she's not a mathematical point, and she was not moving radially from the pivot point (what you've observed, and it's true). All that induces rotation. Then she bumps into Clooney. Their rotation doesn't cease, in fact it's amplified when another tightening starts. Coming to a complete halt in such condition is physically impossible.

No. Their rotation is not dependable on the rotation of ISS. It arises from the fact they were momentarily a double pendulum jerked when the shortest part of the chord stopped them. That induces rotation around the pivot point, which is the connection of the chord to the Soyuz capsule. There is come movement of the ISS in the layered image I've made, but that's because of the movement of the camera. Notice it's similar to the background stars, but very different from the astronauts. When Clooney lets go, he remains in a linear motion away from the pivot point. Bullock, on the other hand, starts to go back. The chord isn't perfectly rigid. It's elastic and quite long, probably almost 25 metres. Also, Bullock is not rigid, either. She springs back and hits one of the modules instead of Soyuz, which makes sense. Yes, that's what she was trying to do, but he thought it wouldn't work. The chord really was on the verge of slipping. Also, by the time they're reeled in, she would've suffocated. Rotation was too slow, and the rope too long. She had minutes before real agony starts.

Exactly. The chords were slipping because of the centrifugal force. When you watch the shots with Clooney holding the chord, the stars are passing by all the time. They are rotating. The exact numbers aren't important, the idea is. I've made a multilayered image of the scene. Rotation is clearly visible. The plane of the rotation isn't parallel to the viewer, though. It is under angle, but that's ok. After a tethered realistic body (not a mathematical point) is stopped by the tether, it will enter rotation around the pivot. Here we have two bodies tethered to each other. Even if they were mathematical points, the rotation would be inevitable. We're talking about a momentary double pendulum action here. I honestly don't understand where's the problem. They must enter rotation, the consequence must be centrifugal force. Whether it's enough to cause slipping, oh well, that depends on the friction between the chord and the EVA suit, doesn't it? If it fits to the plot, I say great.

God, not this again... The decceleration lasted for a few seconds, and their talk lasted for a fairly longer time. It was over by the time he let go. They were rotating around Soyuz. I even calculated it somewhere. The total length is close to 27 m, and the force (I think it was less than 1 N) is small but enough to keep it tight. It doesn't matter if the numbers aren't exactly true (this is the part where nerd fandom starts irritating me), the point is that they're rotating and the grip is very slight. They will experience centrifugal force and that fits the plot of the movie. End of discussion. Geez.

The orbit thingy was a neccessary thing. Without that, the plot falls apart. It's not a scientific error, but a technical one. If you put two objects in the same orbital height and inclination, but with different argument of periapsis, they will follow each other. So if Hubble, ISS and Tiangong were in such orbits, they'd look motionless to each other. Her return is not realistic. It's highly simplified, but I'm ok with it. Wikipedia is written by anyone, therefore that's someone's opinion. That has absolutely no sense. Don't build your opinion about something based on someone's opinion. Watch the scene yourself. They were already deccelerated from their linear motion, but ended, unavoidably, in a rotational reference frame around Soyuz. Centrifugal force held the chords tight enough to cause gradual slipping.

Nope, this is what people think a black hole looks like. A two dimensional hole.

Loud infrasound. Thunder from far away, sea waves, those are louder sources, but those effects were measured with intensive artificial sources. Household appliances such as cheap transformers do not emit such sounds.

Probably the latter. The more realistic these things are, the more crap comes out of people's mouths. Very sad. If you're talking about the scene when dr. Stone gets tangled into the parachute, it's one of the rare examples of extreme realism. For the love of Newton, I've never understood why do people think the scene is incorrect. Even deGrasse made a mistake criticizing it.

Yeah, there's already a thread, this should go there. On the topic of black holes - I'm not exactly sure what's new here. We knew they bend light so that around its edges you can see the whole universe.

Is that sarcasm? Newtonian mechanics, behaviour of sound, all kinds of technical details of ISS and Soyuz, etc. It wasn't perfect, but it extremely well made, compared to other movies of its genre.

Those are called homonyms. Same spelling, same pronounciation, different meaning. Not very common words. Croatian: bor | boron | Pinus sp. mol | SI unit | minor musical scale

And when a lot of reality is respected, some of nerds lift their expectations and s*it all over the movie. Example - Gravity.

I don't like Baumgartner. He has proven to be a cocky douchebag when he was, as a famous person on the peak of his popularity, taking a dump on the effort of going to Mars. He's not really into space exploration, and is an adrenalin addict. The media romanticized him.

If you want to experience a typical aeroplane travelling nightmare, you're in for a treat. Almost six hours of buzzing, annoying uptalk, mindless rambling, annoying children... Enjoy. If this was available for Oculus Rift, it would be like, omg, really awesome.

If you necro a thread with ":)" or "that's great" or "I don't like it personally", then you're stupid. If you necro a thread with relevant information about it and the mods start bi*ching "because you necroed it and omg necroing is bad m'kay", then they're stupid. Basic forum etiquette.

I thought it's gonna be a movie...

LHC deals with extremely rarified beam of protons. The world is made of densely packed atoms connected by electron clouds. Very, very, very different things.

Saturn V is an obsolete piece of technology which can not be resurected anymore. We had a discussion about this on the forum. The rocket was made in the late sixties with late sixties technology. It would be very stupid to try to bring it back.

The heating is present, but so far everything says it's insignificant. The intensities of such fields at appropriate distances are benign. That's what SAR is for. Things like long distance microwave transmitters are extremely powerful and will cause more than discomfort if you put yourself in front of their dishes for a longer time and don't move so that the tissues are exposed constantly to the same intensities. In some cases you can't even feel it. Wifi routers at home are laughably pathetic when compared to those things. 20 m away and signal strength is already quite poor. We also move around in those fields. Rotation, translation. If you'd strap several routers to your head and wear them 24/7, you might experience some minor problems, but it would take chronic exposure, i.e. months or even years. We can never 100% rule out any effect but "for all intents and purposes", there's nothing to be afraid of. That's what the end user wants to know.

It could be calculated. The temperatures between the surface and impactor would grow to incredible values, true...

I won't link such crap here because it's against the rules, but I just wanted you to know that the goblins in heads of conspiracy theorists have started to do their dance. Typical highly magnified, low resolution photos of the comet are now online, with "alien artifacts" being pointed out. It's incredible. They're so predictable.

Even if you went at light speed (ignoring the relativistic distortions of everything), you're too slow to be faster than the electrical interactions between atoms. Result - big bada boom.

Već imam KOSMOS i Home Grown Rockets, dođe na isto jer već imaju dijelove za Sojuz, TKS i Saljut. Custom Asteroids još nisam.

You'd never pass through Earth. The more speed you have, the more energy you deliver and it means larger temperature of the impact site. Therefore, more boom. Oh and btw, it's "many hypotheses ahead". No theories here.