Jump to content

Christopher Nolans "Interstellar" movie shines new light on black holes.

Frank_G

By Frank_G
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Javster

Javster

Posted
Posted
It's incredible that they hired an astrophysicist to help get this movie right. Christopher Nolan has always been a good director, but going the extra mile is what turns a great movie into a masterpiece. If only Alfonso Cuaron had hired an expert for Gravity, it might have been a decent movie. Actually, if he had hired an expert, there would have been no movie, since the whole premise for the film wouldn't exist (I'm referring to what happens near the beginning of the movie).

Pretty sure he did hire an expert. I'd be surprised if any major film didn't hire specialists in the field being shown on screen. Imagine a war movie with no historians involved to point out that they didn't have plastic bags in 1940 or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-Velocity-

-Velocity-

Posted
Posted

While the film does look kinda cool, as I said before, I have objections to the premise. We killed the Earth, so we're going to find another habitable, probably life-bearing world to destroy? I'd have a hard time rooting for the protagonist... if we messed up that bad, I'd rather humans go extinct than cause any more destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerikBalm

KerikBalm

Posted
Posted

From what I know of the premise, I agree, it sounds stupid.

Ecological disaster on earth - > blackhole magically appears but does not immediately cause a massive catastrophe on Earth due to graviational perturbations.

Blackhole is actually a functional wormhole (or human technology makes it so?)

World in the midst of ecological collapse builds the biggest spacecraft we've ever seen, all to get a handful of people to the other side, which may not even be in another galaxy, and is no more likely to have a habitable system any closer to it than there are habitable systems close to our solar system.

Then this spacecraft somehow gets to a habitable planet, and the biohazard aspect is ignored, and a handfull of people visit a world that seems to support life, but is still not really suited for humans.

I'm not sure, but its also implied that this may be a one way journey.

Step 3: ?????

Step 4: Profit!!! humanity is saved.

-PS I suspect they will actually end up at Earth, billions of years in the past, or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpaceXray

SpaceXray

Posted
Posted
From what I know of the premise, I agree, it sounds stupid.

Ecological disaster on earth - > blackhole magically appears but does not immediately cause a massive catastrophe on Earth due to graviational perturbations.

Blackhole is actually a functional wormhole (or human technology makes it so?)

World in the midst of ecological collapse builds the biggest spacecraft we've ever seen, all to get a handful of people to the other side, which may not even be in another galaxy, and is no more likely to have a habitable system any closer to it than there are habitable systems close to our solar system.

Then this spacecraft somehow gets to a habitable planet, and the biohazard aspect is ignored, and a handfull of people visit a world that seems to support life, but is still not really suited for humans.

I'm not sure, but its also implied that this may be a one way journey.

Step 3: ?????

Step 4: Profit!!! humanity is saved.

-PS I suspect they will actually end up at Earth, billions of years in the past, or something like that.

You aren't looking from a wide perspective, and you got some facts wrong.

No spoilers but:

1. No black hole ever appeared near the Solar system, a WORMHOLE did.

2. They use a repurposed interplanetary ship to get to Saturn where the wormhole appeared.

3. They enter a new planetary system with a black hole where due to their speed time dilation in incredibly large compared to Earth.

4. They go looking for a proper exoplanet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted

Wormhole (if it ever exist; I suppose it can't actually due to the Universe's flatness) often described as a site where the curvature of spacetime there "folds" to connect a site with another site far off. It shouldn't have a huge gravity well, least are from what most people draws it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-Velocity-

-Velocity-

Posted
Posted
Wormhole (if it ever exist; I suppose it can't actually due to the Universe's flatness) often described as a site where the curvature of spacetime there "folds" to connect a site with another site far off. It shouldn't have a huge gravity well, least are from what most people draws it.

It's where the curvature of space time is so extreme that it connects to another part of the universe. Curvature of space time = gravity, so the gravitational field would be huge. I'm having a hard time imagining how the throat of a wormhole is not a black hole. Anyone know? Can a wormhole be modified so that you don't pass into an event horizon when you pass into a wormhole? I'll look it up when I get the chance if no one here knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kulebron

Kulebron

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just watched a trailer. So hollywood.

I wonder why make such cliché-d movies at all? It's just so the same: people being happy first 5 minutes, birds tweeting and flute playing in the background, then bad things, symphonic orchestra, then they're gloomy and brave untill last minute, and then they're happy and there plays a typical orchestra sequence. Why repeat this over and over?

There's little space for character there. Apollo 13 was I think the best in the genre, and they got it right by building the plot with some minor conflicts around the main plot line. Remove those, and it's just another Bruce-Willis-saves-everybody expendable thrash. Such a plot is too straightforward and predictable, and usually leaves no space for suspense or any conflicts between characters. Well, there are attempts to generate suspense, when characters have an argument while time's ticking and something's leaking, and director tries to scare you with it, but that's too obvious.

The idea with the real physics and wormholes is great, but it would fit more plausibly into a completesy fantastic world, like in the Blade Runner ambient, with people vs people plot line.

Edited by Kulebron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted
Wormhole (if it ever exist; I suppose it can't actually due to the Universe's flatness) often described as a site where the curvature of spacetime there "folds" to connect a site with another site far off. It shouldn't have a huge gravity well, least are from what most people draws it.

It's where the curvature of space time is so extreme that it connects to another part of the universe. Curvature of space time = gravity, so the gravitational field would be huge. I'm having a hard time imagining how the throat of a wormhole is not a black hole. Anyone know? Can a wormhole be modified so that you don't pass into an event horizon when you pass into a wormhole? I'll look it up when I get the chance if no one here knows.

I know... But imagine a stellar-mass black hole and a super-massive black hole. The smaller one will have a smaller influence (less mass), yet the rate of curvature change will be soo fast that you'll experience spaghettification even while you're not yet on the event horizon. Super-massive black holes, on the other hand, might makes it that entering its event horizon isn't a very noticeable thing to any observer, other than the fact you'll not be able to return outside

Well, I haven't tried to calculate the rate of curvature change myself through. But I'd expect so... if not, how can there be a useful wormhole then ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PakledHostage

PakledHostage

Posted
Posted
Just watched a trailer. So hollywood.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I avoid going to see films that are advertised as "having great special effects" because that is almost always synonymous with "it has a schlocky plot". I have made exceptions to my own rule for movies like Gravity, but I usually end up wishing I hadn't. Gravity was advertised as having great special effects and accurate physics, but the story was nothing more than a continual procession clichés. I don't expect any different from Interstellar (although I will probably go and see it too).

Apollo 13 was I think the best in the genre, and they got it right by building the plot with some minor conflicts around the main plot line.

I suspect that the reason they got Apollo 13 right was because the real-life events already had all of the necessary elements of a compelling story. They just had to compress that real-life story into a screenplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpaceXray

SpaceXray

Posted
Posted

Interstellar is the most realistic space movie you will ever get, so stop with your nonsense predictions and appreciate that a great director like Nolan created this masterpiece(acc. to some critics). Still not convinced? The ship they are on is spinning at the right rpm for it's radius from the center of mass for around 1.08 g. Some guy on his fan club calculated the rpm from a shot in the last trailer and approzximated the size of Endurance to figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PakledHostage

PakledHostage

Posted
Posted (edited)
Interstellar is the most realistic space movie you will ever get ... The ship they are on is spinning at the right rpm for it's radius from the center of mass for around 1.08 g. Some guy on his fan club calculated the rpm from a shot in the last trailer and approzximated the size of Endurance to figure that out.

That's great, but I am talking about the story lines of movies that are advertised as having "great special effects". Gravity had great special effects and "accurate physics" too, but I thought the story sucked. I am not alone.

Likewise, there are already plenty of preliminary reviews of Interstellar (some of which are linked to upthread by other members of this forum) that suggest that Interstellar's story sucks too. As I said earlier, I will probably go and see it. I just expect to be disappointed by the story.

Edited by PakledHostage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CptRichardson

CptRichardson

Posted
Posted
That's great, but I am talking about the story lines of movies that are advertised as having "great special effects". Gravity had great special effects and "accurate physics" too, but I thought the story sucked. I am not alone.

Likewise, there are already plenty of preliminary reviews of Interstellar (some of which are linked to upthread by other members of this forum) that suggest that Interstellar's story sucks too. As I said earlier, I will probably go and see it. I just expect to be disappointed by the story.

Given that they seem to be interested in settling on a planet near a black hole... yeah, no.

Don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WestAir

WestAir

Posted
Posted
Given that they seem to be interested in settling on a planet near a black hole... yeah, no.

Don't want.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a singularity can be orbited just like any other body. That's like saying "Given that they seem to be interested in settling on a planet near a star... yeah, no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boomerang

Boomerang

Posted
Posted
Interstellar is the most realistic space movie you will ever get, so stop with your nonsense predictions and appreciate that a great director like Nolan created this masterpiece(acc. to some critics). Still not convinced? The ship they are on is spinning at the right rpm for it's radius from the center of mass for around 1.08 g. Some guy on his fan club calculated the rpm from a shot in the last trailer and approzximated the size of Endurance to figure that out.

Since Nolan directed it, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the entire story is just narrated by Michael Caine telling the audience exactly what's going on as it happens. I'm sure it'll be a great looking film, but like Gravity, the writing and most likely the plot are going to leave much to be desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CptRichardson

CptRichardson

Posted
Posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a singularity can be orbited just like any other body. That's like saying "Given that they seem to be interested in settling on a planet near a star... yeah, no."

Close enough that apparently the planet is undergoing significant tidal forces, to include near-vertical walls of water as 'tides', according to one of the latest trailers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
How2FoldSoup

How2FoldSoup

Posted
Posted
Got my tickets for Friday(btw, I live in Europe, so Interstellar arrives earlier for me :D).

I'll make sure to write a short review here without spoilers.

That doesn't stop it from premiering in hollywood tomorrow, and an early release on Thursday at 8pm or at midnight. I'm going to the 8pm Thursday showing :D

Either way, I'll check here first to see what you have to say. If you're going to the midnight premiere then you will still beat me..

My girlfriend wanted to go to the premiere but we're both too busy with classes :( It would have been very cool..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...