The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Fortuna on November 10, 2014, 12:27:49 AM
-
Has anyone seen it yet? Despite some of the deus ex machina plot nonsense, I think it was quite good. It felt a little like Inception in space, but I'm very biased towards space movies. And not enough of them come out because they're so hard to do well. But Interstellar was done well. I'd give it a 9/10. But you have to see it in the theater to really appreciate it, I think.
-
Interstellar. Wow. I think that may be the greatest film I've ever seen, for me. It was gorgeous on every single level...visually, aurally, even in the story... The realistic renderings of wormholes, black holes, the "fourth dimension" and tesseracts...God damn, just...as someone who loves science, particularly physics and space, to death...this film is the crowning moment of sci-fi, I think. It's a science fiction film that really, *genuinely* LOVES science and it shows. No half-assed special effects just to have big explosions and crap, no, this film is gorgeous because of its realism. I don't think people really *grasp* how *gorgeous* and amazing space is. We're fed this halfhearted crap by sci-fi films that we just take for granted now, but this film goes the whole damn mile to show you exactly what space is, how grand and expansive and unimaginably beyond imagination it is. When they're going through that wormhole...something we've seen in dozens of films, but when they're doing it here and it's modeled by a real physicist, rendered for hundreds of hours with complex algorithms to make sure it's accurate...it's beyond anything I've ever seen before.
And the music...and the absolute lack of it at times... I could go on for hours. It's absolutely beautiful. Minimal when it needs to be, and extremely loud and shrill when the film would benefit most...then dead silent in the vast expanse of space. It's chilling.
Then, finally, the story. I don't want to spoil anything, but god. I'll be the first to admit that the film forgoes realism at various points for the sake of film, and that it even veers into hypothetical—or sheerly tangential—territory at times, it's all worth it. This movie, man...this movie. I haven't cried at a movie in a good while, but this one made me cry two and a half times. Once sort of early on I cried from Matthew McConaughey's amazing performance, then I teared up later on. Then afterwards, as I left the theater, I just started crying again...partly because it was just so amazing to me, but also because it got me thinking about the world so much.
Everyone should have to see this. THIS is the amazing, *real* stuff we're missing out on when we cut NASA funding because it's "not important". Not important? Do you forget who we are? Like they say in the film, humans are explorers, it's in us, our fate is not to die on this planet, it's to go beyond and yet we're letting ourselves be held back because people are so obsessed with the goddamn materialism and petty squabbles and attachments here. We're so short-sighted that we think it's better to pollute the hell out of this planet and then dismiss any solutions as "not worth it", or "too costly" or "unnecessary". Honestly, after this film...that line of thinking really disgusts me. It's actually really, really saddening...I want to see space, other planets, new discoveries and exploration. I don't want humanity to doom itself to a pathetic life of bitching between vaguely-different political parties or stupid fights about how people shouldn't be equal because everyone's so damn scared of change. I don't want humanity to have this amazing start where we colonized an entire planet, scraped the edge of space by sending men to the Goddamn *moon*, only to flicker out and die because we were too short-sighted, selfish and obsessed with immediate gain to continue our legacy. It's legitimately hard not to cry about, just looking up into the sky and knowing that we should be up there, we should be doing everything in our power to be among the fucking stars and just doing things we'd have never imagined possible before. I want that more than anything. I think this film, more than anything, has solidified my desire to get into science, to be a physicist. Hopefully I have the drive to do it. But, above all, I really hope more people see this movie and open their eyes to what we should be doing.
Our destiny is not on this planet. Earth should really just be our stepping stone to greater things. Our destiny is out there.
-
Worst. Movie. Ever.
Pretentious "wow so bold" film that deserves none of the money it is making. Literally the worst film I have ever seen and I've seen The Room, which was much better entertainment wise.
-
I was worried about it going Deus Ex Machina, but I thought the scenes on the station at the end were so great that it paid off the more contrived bits. The only part that really irked me was the "love is a dimension" theme. It felt too sentimental and did not fit the movie. If he had just said he had to follow his heart I think it would have been just as effective, but not a hokey.
The scene where he says goodbye to Murph was brilliant and so were the scenes after they get back from the first planet.
-
Worst. Movie. Ever.
Pretentious "wow so bold" film that deserves none of the money it is making. Literally the worst film I have ever seen and I've seen The Room, which was much better entertainment wise.
I did not think it was bold at all. Just well thought out with a good heart. What made you think it was pretentious if you can single anything out?
-
The hack/frauds at RLM have released their review (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-interstellar/) of the movie. Going to end up watching that before I see the movie itself.
-
Literally Prometheus.
-
Oh God I botched that link.
tl;dw the RLM guys liked it, but felt it was too many movies rolled into one. They felt that the weakest part of the movie was the human drama.
-
I wanna see it.
-
Oh God I botched that link.
tl;dw the RLM guys liked it, but felt it was too many movies rolled into one. They felt that the weakest part of the movie was the human drama.
This is what I've been hearing. That it was too ambitious with the space scenes that it weakened the human element. Basically, it missed the mark.
I'm still going to see it cause I think it'll still be good regardless. I'm just worried it'll be similar to 12 Years a Slave.
-
The human element was definitely strong. I am not sure how strong it was expected to be in a space exploration movie. Is it Bridges of Madison County? No, but it has much more depth than any other sci-fi movie I have seen. Enough so that it transcends the genre I think.
-
Oh God I botched that link.
tl;dw the RLM guys liked it, but felt it was too many movies rolled into one. They felt that the weakest part of the movie was the human drama.
This is what I've been hearing. That it was too ambitious with the space scenes that it weakened the human element. Basically, it missed the mark.
I'm still going to see it cause I think it'll still be good regardless. I'm just worried it'll be similar to 12 Years a Slave.
My favorite part of 12 Years a Slave was when the main guy went through the wormhole to gain his freedom and his captors were very baffled.
-
What was wrong with 12 years a slave
-
What was wrong with 12 years a slave
It tried really hard but didn't hit its mark.
-
It was much too long, it couldn't pick a genre, and too many of its plot devices were completely contrived.
So love is a dimension or whatever, and also some aliens that are actually us from the future are going to drag you across the universe into a black hole to transcend the boundaries of space and time but only in this one room and you can't really do anything but push some books around.
e: There actually were a lot of things I liked about this film; I just wish it had either been a more interesting drama or a more interesting sci-fi flick. If it had been mostly a character drama that culminated in his black hole journey (a la Contact), that could have been great. Likewise, it could have been a great pure sci-fi movie, going to more planets, maybe throwing in a robot fight or two.
And I think everyone who saw it would agree that TARS was the highlight of the film.
-
So, I just saw this. I'm not really sure how to describe how I feel about it, so let's just say that while there wasn't really anything glaringly bad about it, nothing in it really quite hit the mark. That's pretty much how I've felt about every Nolan film I've seen, so not much surprise there. I guess "too ambituous" puts it quite well. Nolan's cinematography isn't nearly good enough to match the graceful aesthetics of films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey or Gravity, and the characterization is not only stuck in one dimension, but due to all the time distortion stuff, whatever little there is to them is given very little screentime to get properly established and thus they don't really grab your attention and it's hard to care about them when they're suddenly 20 years older or end up dying. And despite the film being filled with exposition, it almost feels as if there isn't enough of it because the film tries to tackle way too much shit in its timespan.
Overall, it was just... eh. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't great.
-
It was much too long, it couldn't pick a genre, and too many of its plot devices were completely contrived.
So love is a dimension or whatever, and also some aliens that are actually us from the future are going to drag you across the universe into a black hole to transcend the boundaries of space and time but only in this one room and you can't really do anything but push some books around.
e: There actually were a lot of things I liked about this film; I just wish it had either been a more interesting drama or a more interesting sci-fi flick. If it had been mostly a character drama that culminated in his black hole journey (a la Contact), that could have been great. Likewise, it could have been a great pure sci-fi movie, going to more planets, maybe throwing in a robot fight or two.
And I think everyone who saw it would agree that TARS was the highlight of the film.
Er, not just that one room, he could have gone anywhere from they're, but what he wanted to do was in there
-
Welp, I finally got around to seeing it. I agree with the RLM guys, and the Rottentomatoes score. It's a good film, but not a great one and certainly not Nolan's best. What dragged it down for me was the heavy handed dialogue and issues with the plot. I didn't appreciate the "love transcends space" nonsense, it came across as very corny and out of place in a movie that had established itself as being critical of silly concepts and quite grounded. The pro-exploration stuff also began to grind on me, I realise Nolan wants to really push this message but I feel he was too blunt in doing so.
Then there's the issues with the plot. Time travel always fucks up media that uses it, and Interstellar is no exception. It doesn't make sense that humanity evolved to where they are when Earth was destined to die, so how could they have saved us? Time is portrayed as something set in stone unless you mess with it (as seen in the Tesseract), so it should be safe to assume that the future humans had to go through the same stuff we did.
Black Holes do not work the way they do in the movie. No one knows what is beyond the Event Horizon, but it's probably not a Tesseract that happens to manifest all of your specific memories and allows you to change them, before dumping you in the future next to Saturn. Another issue was the constant cutting from Cooper to Murph during suspenseful moments. It felt contrived trying to create drama with the doctor and lung crap on Earth when Cooper is trying to save humanity. I felt Matt Damon was a bit of a distraction in an already long movie, but I didn't dislike the addition of that sub plot.
That said, it did have great imagery and some cool directing choices. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, but I think Nolan could have done a lot better than he did.
-
Welp, I finally got around to seeing it. I agree with the RLM guys, and the Rottentomatoes score. It's a good film, but not a great one and certainly not Nolan's best. What dragged it down for me was the heavy handed dialogue and issues with the plot. I didn't appreciate the "love transcends space" nonsense, it came across as very corny and out of place in a movie that had established itself as being critical of silly concepts and quite grounded. The pro-exploration stuff also began to grind on me, I realise Nolan wants to really push this message but I feel he was too blunt in doing so.
Then there's the issues with the plot. Time travel always fucks up media that uses it, and Interstellar is no exception. It doesn't make sense that humanity evolved to where they are when Earth was destined to die, so how could they have saved us? Time is portrayed as something set in stone unless you mess with it (as seen in the Tesseract), so it should be safe to assume that the future humans had to go through the same stuff we did.
Black Holes do not work the way they do in the movie. No one knows what is beyond the Event Horizon, but it's probably not a Tesseract that happens to manifest all of your specific memories and allows you to change them, before dumping you in the future next to Saturn. Another issue was the constant cutting from Cooper to Murph during suspenseful moments. It felt contrived trying to create drama with the doctor and lung crap on Earth when Cooper is trying to save humanity. I felt Matt Damon was a bit of a distraction in an already long movie, but I didn't dislike the addition of that sub plot.
That said, it did have great imagery and some cool directing choices. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, but I think Nolan could have done a lot better than he did.
Cool story bro.
-
Welp, I finally got around to seeing it. I agree with the RLM guys, and the Rottentomatoes score. It's a good film, but not a great one and certainly not Nolan's best. What dragged it down for me was the heavy handed dialogue and issues with the plot. I didn't appreciate the "love transcends space" nonsense, it came across as very corny and out of place in a movie that had established itself as being critical of silly concepts and quite grounded. The pro-exploration stuff also began to grind on me, I realise Nolan wants to really push this message but I feel he was too blunt in doing so.
Then there's the issues with the plot. Time travel always fucks up media that uses it, and Interstellar is no exception. It doesn't make sense that humanity evolved to where they are when Earth was destined to die, so how could they have saved us? Time is portrayed as something set in stone unless you mess with it (as seen in the Tesseract), so it should be safe to assume that the future humans had to go through the same stuff we did.
Black Holes do not work the way they do in the movie. No one knows what is beyond the Event Horizon, but it's probably not a Tesseract that happens to manifest all of your specific memories and allows you to change them, before dumping you in the future next to Saturn. Another issue was the constant cutting from Cooper to Murph during suspenseful moments. It felt contrived trying to create drama with the doctor and lung crap on Earth when Cooper is trying to save humanity. I felt Matt Damon was a bit of a distraction in an already long movie, but I didn't dislike the addition of that sub plot.
That said, it did have great imagery and some cool directing choices. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, but I think Nolan could have done a lot better than he did.
Cool story bro.
Compelling contribution, comrade.
-
I'm trying to get better at critique and Interstellar is one of the things I decided to write one for because it's still in fairly recent memory. So whatever!
The main problem I have with Interstellar is that everything that happens in it feels really contrived. It feels like a film written in sequences which simply had to be in it, with the connecting pieces added later. This often means that the film tries to feel smart in expense of the characters being stupid.
Now, I don't mean that characters lacking in valuable insight or intelligence is necessarily a character flaw, but in this film in particular it seems that characters act simply according to what the audience should see next. For instance, Cooper had to be shot into space on a mission without formal training or even basic briefing, despite the inevitability of the mission taking over a decade at minimum to complete. It's not because the people at NASA didn't deem any of that to be necessary for such an important mission, it's just so the audience would be treated with the hammy emotionally loaded leaving scene and establish the bitter relationship Murphy has towards her father for most of the rest of the story. It also leaves open the opportunity to have all the technobabble that makes this film ”scientific” be explained in plain exposition later when the mission is actually briefed. In space!
Then the crew gets to Miller's planet, and something fascinating happens. There's been a seemingly promising consistent transmission coming from it, so the crew decides to check it out. And then it's explained that time is extremely dilated on the planet, so it's going to take years just to go there briefly. So, when the whole thing expectedly ends in disaster, Cooper asks why the wreckage of Miller's ship was still on the surface despite the huge waves, and Amelia doesn't hesitate to answer the obvious: Miller would have only just landed there herself in her frame of reference due to the time dilation. Yet this simple notion is completely ignored by having the crew as well as everyone in NASA think the transmission is indicative of any eligibility of the planet, despite every character knowing fully well how time dilation works, except when it actually matters. They had all the knowledge and tools at their disposal to find out why the transmitter isn't worth retrieving, and they could have easily found out about the planet's enormous tidal waves from orbit if they had just taken a moment to study it. But this doesn't happen, because we need to show the audience a cool setpiece and age the characters on Earth to where we want them to be in the plot. Again, it's not so much that the characters are acting stupidly that is the issue, but that it's contrived for the sake of plot convenience and neat-looking visual backdrops.
The technology in this film feels really contrived as well. You can see there was a deliberate effort to make the film grounded in reality when the crew leaves the Earth. It's realistic and easy for the audience to accept that space technology wouldn't be hugely improved from the present day, so it's immediately established that it hasn't gotten Star Trek levels of convenient – at least not at this part of the story. They take off in a multi-stage rocket and take two years to get to Saturn and it establishes a notion that space travel is still really difficult and interstellar travel by normal means is still virtually impossible.
But then they go through the wormhole and everything changes. Nolan seems to have decided that different rules apply to different places, because as soon as we leave the frame of reference of our solar system, the film takes a dramatic turn from science fiction to space fantasy. Travelling between planets seems immediately much more effortless, and taking off from a planet on a shuttle is something they can actually do all along. So much for grounded in reality. Maybe they had a legitimate reason for taking so long to get through the wormhole and use such an antiquated process for it, but to me it just feels really contrived that they create an expectation for one thing and then proceed to immediately drop it when plot convenience deems it necessary.
Eventually the tesseract happens, which is a nice visually stimulating image to serve as a backdrop to Cooper's exhausting delivery of exposition that conveniently explains everything that is happening in the scene. And then Murphy makes the bizarre assumption for no reason at all that her father is the ghost in the bookshelf and happens to be completely right about it. Everything wraps up perfectly, and that's just great. But also really, really contrived.
I respect Nolan as a director, because he goes to enormous lengths to achieve his vision. The amount of practical effects used in this film where CGI would have sufficed is insane, and it's great that he's willing to go through the effort. It's just a shame that his vision seems to only be limited to visual imagery, and how we get to see his visual setpieces isn't as important to him as simply having us see them. Perhaps he would benefit from having a screenwriter to closely work with and iron out all the weird contrivances and trim the heavy-handed exposition that stop his pretty good films from being great films.
-
Then the crew gets to Miller's planet, and something fascinating happens. There's been a seemingly promising consistent transmission coming from it, so the crew decides to check it out. And then it's explained that time is extremely dilated on the planet, so it's going to take years just to go there briefly. So, when the whole thing expectedly ends in disaster, Cooper asks why the wreckage of Miller's ship was still on the surface despite the huge waves, and Amelia doesn't hesitate to answer the obvious: Miller would have only just landed there herself in her frame of reference due to the time dilation. Yet this simple notion is completely ignored by having the crew as well as everyone in NASA think the transmission is indicative of any eligibility of the planet, despite every character knowing fully well how time dilation works, except when it actually matters. They had all the knowledge and tools at their disposal to find out why the transmitter isn't worth retrieving, and they could have easily found out about the planet's enormous tidal waves from orbit if they had just taken a moment to study it. But this doesn't happen, because we need to show the audience a cool setpiece and age the characters on Earth to where we want them to be in the plot. Again, it's not so much that the characters are acting stupidly that is the issue, but that it's contrived for the sake of plot convenience and neat-looking visual backdrops.
I believe they say something about Miller's planet being much closer to Gargantua than they (those back home at NASA) originally thought it was when they first arrive in the system.
-
I watched this movie. It had its moments, but overall, I agree with Blanko and Vindictus. It's like Nolan started out this movie wanting to be very realistic and details-oriented, but later just dropped that in favor of corny fantastical ideals, like black holes being magical time-travel stations and the power of love conquering all. And another thing, what was up with that ending with the huge self-sustaining space stations that humanity now lives on? Wasn't the whole point of the expedition to find hospitable planets? Since when were the space stations an option?
-
I watched this movie. It had its moments, but overall, I agree with Blanko and Vindictus. It's like Nolan started out this movie wanting to be very realistic and details-oriented, but later just dropped that in favor of corny fantastical ideals, like black holes being magical time-travel stations and the power of love conquering all. And another thing, what was up with that ending with the huge self-sustaining space stations that humanity now lives on? Wasn't the whole point of the expedition to find hospitable planets? Since when were the space stations an option?
Since Jessica Chastain figured out the secret of gravity because of Matthew McConaughey.
-
I watched this movie. It had its moments, but overall, I agree with Blanko and Vindictus. It's like Nolan started out this movie wanting to be very realistic and details-oriented, but later just dropped that in favor of corny fantastical ideals, like black holes being magical time-travel stations and the power of love conquering all. And another thing, what was up with that ending with the huge self-sustaining space stations that humanity now lives on? Wasn't the whole point of the expedition to find hospitable planets? Since when were the space stations an option?
The black hole was not a time travel station. Cooper used the Tesseract, which was built within the black hole, to travel time. If you had been paying attention you would know that the power of love didn't conquer anything. The Tesseract was built specifically so that Cooper could communicate two things to himself and Murph: the coordinates of the NASA base, and the "quantum data" gathered in the singularity of the black hole, which is what was missing from Brand's equation. You know, the frequently mentioned equation that needs to be solved in order to launch the enormous stations? Were you only awake for the first and last 30 minutes of this movie? Anyway, Cooper communicates this information in binary to Murph, and she solves the problem. 50 years later, when Cooper is rescued, the stations have been launched.
-
The black hole was not a time travel station. Cooper used the Tesseract, which was built within the black hole, to travel time.
A magical time travel station somehow being built inside a black hole isn't much less stupid than the black hole itself being the magical time travel station. The point is that if you go into a black hole, you die. You don't get to go on an amazing journey of psychedelic whimsy and wonder. You just die.
If you had been paying attention you would know that the power of love didn't conquer anything. The Tesseract was built specifically so that Cooper could communicate two things to himself and Murph
I'm pretty sure Cooper says something about being able to cross time and space to communicate with Murphy through the power of love, the only truly transcendent force in the universe. Yes, the Tesseract was involved, but it was love that brought him to Murphy in particular. Speaking of Murphy, the movie's treatment of Murphy's Law as some kind of serious scientific principle about the inevitability of any and all possible events eventually occurring was amusing. Murphy's Law is actually just a joke, a tongue-in-cheek adage that specifically refers to things going wrong. In real life, naming a kid after it would be a cruel way to constantly remind them that they were a mistake.
You know, the frequently mentioned equation that needs to be solved in order to launch the enormous stations? Were you only awake for the first and last 30 minutes of this movie? Anyway, Cooper communicates this information in binary to Murph, and she solves the problem. 50 years later, when Cooper is rescued, the stations have been launched.Anyway, Cooper communicates this information in binary to Murph, and she solves the problem. 50 years later, when Cooper is rescued, the stations have been launched.
No, it wasn't to launch the space stations, it was to transport large amounts of people at once; people who would be transported to the hospitable planets that the expedition found. That was the whole point of the expedition, to find hospitable planets. If living on giant space stations had always been an option, then there would have been no reason to bother with the expedition at all. Everyone would have just waited around for Michael Caine to finish the equation - admittedly, he thought that it could never be solved, and that they'd ultimately need to go with Plan B, but Cooper and the others didn't know that, and Cooper made it clear that he wasn't impressed with Plan B as the future of the human race. He wasn't spending all that time traveling around the galaxy for the sake of some anonymous embryos that might be sent there one day, he was doing it to find a home for the people who were already alive, including his family. For the day to be saved at the last minute by those space stations renders the bulk of the story - the search for habitable planets - completely pointless.
-
Well, if you want to get super technical, the leading theory on what happens after the event horizon of a black hole is that you don't die, but rather become stuck in time. At such extreme gravity, time would appear to stand still, at least to an outside observer were they able to actually observe the inside of a black hole's event horizon.
-
The person appears to get smeared over the surface of the event horizon I think. The person falling in though is supposed to go through hell before getting spaghettified.
-
Well, if you want to get super technical, the leading theory on what happens after the event horizon of a black hole is that you don't die, but rather become stuck in time. At such extreme gravity, time would appear to stand still, at least to an outside observer were they able to actually observe the inside of a black hole's event horizon.
You still die. Even if you're in some sort of protective suit you're still trapped and you would eventually die. In truth, the gravitational pull of a black hole would probably tear you to pieces, so suit or no suit you still die.
-
You still die. Even if you're in some sort of protective suit you're still trapped and you would eventually die. In truth, the gravitational pull of a black hole would probably tear you to pieces, so suit or no suit you still die.
No.
-
You still die. Even if you're in some sort of protective suit you're still trapped and you would eventually die. In truth, the gravitational pull of a black hole would probably tear you to pieces, so suit or no suit you still die.
No.
Please tell us about how you escaped a black hole since you apparently have first hand knowledge of their workings.
-
Please tell us about how you escaped a black hole since you apparently have first hand knowledge of their workings.
If you were even remotely aware how any form of academic theory works then you'd realize why this is one of the dumbest demands you could possibly make in this argument.
-
That's what I thought
-
You still die. Even if you're in some sort of protective suit you're still trapped and you would eventually die. In truth, the gravitational pull of a black hole would probably tear you to pieces, so suit or no suit you still die.
No.
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
-
It's called spaghettification. Really.
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time stands still. It would take a time limit of infinity to actually kill you, meaning it never does.
-
But wouldnt you already be dead before you got there?
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time stands still. It would take a time limit of infinity to actually kill you, meaning it never does.
No.
-
But wouldnt you already be dead before you got there?
That depends on how you arrived there. You could probably use a decaying orbit to get stuck in the event horizon without having your vehicle get torn apart. Black holes aren't anything special outside the event horizon, they behave in the same manner as any other gravitational body.
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time stands still. It would take a time limit of infinity to actually kill you, meaning it never does.
I think for an observer outside the Event Horizon looking in, time stands still. For the observer looking out from beyond the event horizon would see the entire history of the universe play out, but inside they would continue their inexorable journey towards spaghettification.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842
-
I think for an observer outside the Event Horizon looking in, time stands still. For the observer looking out from beyond the event horizon would see the entire history of the universe play out, but inside they would continue their inexorable journey towards spaghettification.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842
They would literally "see" infinity, which for the most part is impossible. Their death would be an asymptote on the timeline of the universe. Always getting closer but never really getting there.
-
I think for an observer outside the Event Horizon looking in, time stands still. For the observer looking out from beyond the event horizon would see the entire history of the universe play out, but inside they would continue their inexorable journey towards spaghettification.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842
They would literally "see" infinity, which for the most part is impossible. Their death would be an asymptote on the timeline of the universe. Always getting closer but never really getting there.
To an outside observer, yes.
The person who fell into the black hole would die, but the outside observer would not be able to tell. 'Time' doesn't stop for the person being sucked into the black hole.
The bigger the black hole, the faster they die in their frame of reference.
-
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics.
Black holes don't break physics you idiot.
-
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics.
Black holes don't break physics you idiot.
That's an ongoing debate. In fact, a semantic debate still exists as to whether black holes break conservation of mass because the mass cannot be recovered. The semantics is whether or not "cannot be recovered" is the same as "destroyed." There are many others which I could point out, but I'm not going to bother, because you're Andrew and you either wouldn't understand, or would, but then just respond "ur dum!!!" anyway.
-
because you're Andrew and you either wouldn't understand, or would, but then just respond "ur dum!!!" anyway.
He reminds me of someone.
-
The donut walnut.
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time stands still. It would take a time limit of infinity to actually kill you, meaning it never does.
There's nothing physics breaking about what extreme gravity does to a being who evolved on a planet with Earth's gravity..
-
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics.
Black holes don't break physics you idiot.
No need for name calling in these parts. Warned.
-
I don't see how that is wrong. It would be similar to standing on the sun, if you could do it without being vaporized. The gravity would crush you.
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time stands still. It would take a time limit of infinity to actually kill you, meaning it never does.
There's nothing physics breaking about what extreme gravity does to a being who evolved on a planet with Earth's gravity..
Okay.
-
I think for an observer outside the Event Horizon looking in, time stands still. For the observer looking out from beyond the event horizon would see the entire history of the universe play out, but inside they would continue their inexorable journey towards spaghettification.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1842
They would literally "see" infinity, which for the most part is impossible. Their death would be an asymptote on the timeline of the universe. Always getting closer but never really getting there.
To an outside observer, yes.
The person who fell into the black hole would die, but the outside observer would not be able to tell. 'Time' doesn't stop for the person being sucked into the black hole.
The bigger the black hole, the faster they die in their frame of reference.
They would still witness an unfathomably rapid progression of time for the short while existence continued for them.
-
That is truly fascinating.
That is how I want to go.
-
The Sun's gravity is not strong enough to break pretty much every law of physics.
Black holes don't break physics you idiot.
That's an ongoing debate.
No it isn't. If it exists, it adheres to some physical law, known or unknown.
-
No it isn't. If it exists, it adheres to some physical law, known or unknown.
I wasn't referring to some mystical unknown physical laws. I was referring directly to the laws that humans have attempted to identify. The way you interpret my posts is... odd.