I always see people talking about how scientifically accurate and perfect this movie is, because they were consulted by____(insert astronomer as an appeal to authority here) and it is not only an accurate, but a revolutionary representation of black holes. Is this really legit? Is the movie really that scientific?
>>16785637by the way, I'm not sure if I'm in the right forum, I mean, it's not about the movie itself, but how scientific it is.
I think it's pretty good. Call me a memer but I buy into something like that "love is the real fifth dimension" idea that Anne Hathaway's character talks about. The fifth dimension is a primordial force.
>>16785641love does not exist, there is no substantial evidence of something like that, it is purely affection or a type of placebo effect by the social reconstructed that "love" has on people and thank you, it proved that the OP film is adored by sentimental
>>16785637> millers planet slows flow of time due to the massive black hole near its orbit> spaceship chilling near the planet is completely immuneyou don't even need any physics knowledge to know this is retarded
>>16785644I'm not talking about the emotion you chimp, I'm talking about love as the willing of being. The primordial force that underlies and supports all things.
>>16785646And what about the Black holes?
>>16785650There's no scientific evidence for "love"Get out of the Neolithic times
>>16785637Same guy who did Sharknado 2 too.
>>16785646didn't they say something about the ship experiencing a lot less time effect but still a bit? cant remember now. its probably a bit silly anyway but i really like the movie in general. the robots seemed very unique.
>>16785637The best thing they did was trying to represent a transcendent structure in 4d. He wasn't navigating any labyrinth of time, he was the labyrinth. Notice that he was also talking to lars without the presence of the robot. The overall narrative is very well constructed with time as the antagonist through out with the pivotal moment where it was helping them the entire time. I give it 6 moon landings out of 8.
>>16785637I can't remember how they explained the solid cloud stuff in the movie, but I can't really think of any way how that could work either. One of the more egregious things is how the supposedly competent crew is at the same time aware of the time dilation effects of the ergosphere, and oblivious to them>>16785646>you don't even need any physics knowledge to know this is retardedI'd say you need to know some physics, and not be retarded, to understand what they were going for. Relativity predicts funky properties to the space near a rotating black hole. The difference between being slightly outside or slightly inside the ergosphere is potentially enormous
>>16785650You'd have better luck with proving suffering is the 5th dimension... Schopenhaur would have probably proved it if he were alive today.
>>16785637it was highly accurate in its loli content. scientifically perfect
>>16785637https://youtube.com/shorts/7cYcXptAg7Q
>>16785637you mean Kip Thorne?It started off as scientists wanting to make a science movie to inspire the next generation not movie directors hiring scientists.They hung around for every part of filmmaking and talked to all the actors.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Interstellar
>>16785637Watch Gunbuster too. Not a shitpost, seriously watch it.
>>16785654>There's no scientific evidence for "love">t. thinks "intelligence" is real
>>16785637>I always see people talking about how scientifically accurate and perfect this movie is,lmao> it is not only an accurate, but a revolutionary representation of black holesIn terms of visual effects - yeah. Not in terms of scientific accuracy.
>>16785637Calling Kip Thorne an astronomer reveals your ignorance. Did you know that Kip Thorne published two (2) peer reviewed physics papers based on the movie's rendition of the black hole? No, you didn't. He was more than just a consultant — he actively used hollywoods ginormous budget to skirt the NSF's limited funding. Incredibly based desu
