Interstellar Movie: What Do You Think?

[Razorvox]

Hey everyone, relatively new here. Wondering what you think of the trailers for Interstellar. After seeing Gravity, I think I might enjoy this more as it's about exploring vast distances, not a fan of clooney or bullock either. But as far as the effects go, Gravity is going to be "very" tough to beat, not that it really makes a movie better, I just love enjoying the effects as a 3d artist myself. Been looking forward to a good scifi for awhile. What do you think, the box-like robot has me interested enough! :p

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm looking forward to it, particularly for the representation of the various planets. The scene in the trailer with the giant wave was quite impressive. Here is one of the trailers for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

 

[Bandersnatch]

I'm lookin forward to it as well, even though the reviews on RT are not extremely positive.

 

[enorbet]

I'm just glad SciFi in the movies sells at all so we can get that rare gem from time to time. This isn't likely a diamond but a more a decent cubic zirconium - still pretty fiery but the Science will be "woo woo".

 

[Bandersnatch]

but the Science will be "woo woo".

Not all of it, apparently:
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/

In the end, Nolan got elegant images that advance the story. Thorne got a movie that teaches a mass audience some real, accurate science. But he also got something he didn't expect: a scientific discovery. “This is our observational data,” he says of the movie's visualizations. “That's the way nature behaves. Period.” Thorne says he can get at least two published articles out of it.

 

[enorbet]

Thank You Bandersnatch, that read was satisfyingly frumious. :P

 

[Fewmet]

There is a scene in the movie on the planet near the black hole. There are regular, huge waves that pass. My initial assumption is that they are tidal bulges, huge because of the proximity to the black hole. The more I think about it, the more problems I see. The waves are spaced less than an hour apart, which suggests a two hour rotation of the planet. We see two waves, though, without any intervening night.

Any speculation?

 

[Algr]

Tidal waves: On Earth we have the Furious Fifties. This is a ring at 50° south latitude where you can circumnavigate the Earth without encountering land. The result of this is harsh winds and waves, so it seems that the presence of land is important in calming the seas. It thus seems reasonable that a planet with little or no land would have extreme waves. (I'd expect more wind as well though.) I still see it as a flaw that they could not tell from space that the planet was uninhabitable.

 

[Fewmet]

Tidal waves: On Earth we have the Furious Fifties. This is a ring at 50° south latitude where you can circumnavigate the Earth without encountering land. The result of this is harsh winds and waves, so it seems that the presence of land is important in calming the seas. It thus seems reasonable that a planet with little or no land would have extreme waves. (I'd expect more wind as well though.) I still see it as a flaw that they could not tell from space that the planet was uninhabitable.

There is still that issue of the brief time between waves. I also wonder about waste deep water next to a a tidal bulge hundreds of feet high.

What I really wonder about is the dynamics introduced by time dilation. If the tidal effects are that great on the water, would there be substantially different time dilation on the the near and far sides of the planet? Does that mean the bulge on the near side moves slower, such that the one on the far side catches up? I don't think I have enough of an understanding to sort though that.

 

[phinds]

There is still that issue of the brief time between waves. I also wonder about waste deep water next to a a tidal bulge hundreds of feet high.

What I really wonder about is the dynamics introduced by time dilation. If the tidal effects are that great on the water, would there be substantially different time dilation on the the near and far sides of the planet? Does that mean the bulge on the near side moves slower, such that the one on the far side catches up? I don't think I have enough of an understanding to sort though that.

There is another long thread on this forum where the "science" in the movie is utterly trashed because it is so nonsensical. It's one of the links at the bottom of this page.