Re:The Science of Interstellar [video]
by swframe on Sunday November 09, 2014 @10:52AM
(#8580093)
I think there is an 'uncanny valley' aspect to the science. The movie seems serious in its attempts to portrait the science (the cgi is very well rendered) but also has so many things wrong that it is upsetting (what is rendered makes no sense). I want to suspend my disbelief so I could enjoy it but it is so hard to accept anything about it except that it looks nice.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Science of Interstellar [video]
by rohandhruva on Sunday November 09, 2014 @11:10AM
(#8580126)
Can you share what things it gets wrong? I have been trying to look that up even since I watched the movie, but can't find anything useful.
Re:The Science of Interstellar [video]
by snowwrestler on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:56AM
(#8582207)
To get a time dilation of 1 hour = 7 years, the planet would have to either be moving extremely fast or be very deep in the black hole's gravity well (or both!). Either way, a dinky little shuttle craft is not going to have the power and fuel to get there and back.
Supposedly the signal from this planet had just been saying OK over and over again. We learn that is because of the time dilation--in local time, the probe just landed there a few hours ago. But in reality the time dilation would produce a Doppler shift on the probe signal. Instead of hearing "ok" over and over, they'd hear one super-slow "ok" signal at a super low frequency.
What did the guy on the Endurance eat for 23 years while he was waiting for them?
If the "frozen clouds" are dense enough to walk and land a spaceship on, how are they staying in the air?
Etc.
Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) has been writing about where the science is off (he got a few things wrong in the first blog post though and followed up with another):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/07/interste...
And some corrections:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/09/interste...