Nolan's "Interstellar"

[Primula Baggins]

Judging from his tweets, Neil Degrasse Tyson is quite impressed with the accuracy of the physics. I've gone back over to "will see this" on the basis of that. Even if the drama and characters don't work, seeing things I will never actually see that are nevertheless physically accurate is like getting a virtual tour of Antarctica, or the deep mid-Atlantic ridge, or the peaks of the Andes. Or the far side of the moon. Why on Earth wouldn't I go?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Judging from his tweets, Neil Degrasse Tyson is quite impressed with the accuracy of the physics.

Unlike a certain other space movie, the director of which is too in love with his own brilliance to bother with piddly things like accurate physics.

[Frelga]

Tyson spoke quite highly of Gravity (which I didn't see) and said that any science errors were negligible, iirc. I didn't see his remarks on Interstellar, but Phil Plaitt was not impressed.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Tyson, and a whole host of physical scientists and astronauts, spoke highly of how accurately the science (and the practical work) was portrayed in Gravity. But Voronwë is just trying to push my buttons. And yes, he succeeded.

In any event, as long as it's not completely ridiculous, I think science fiction does not have to slavishly follow the rules of currently-understood physics in order to be laudable as stories. But a certain amount of grounding in reality is definitely a bonus for suspending disbelief.

[yovargas]

A problem I had with the movie is that throughout the movie the characters spend chunks of time explaining relativity and whatnot to each other in very clunky "here's some exposition for the audience" mode. Perhaps a necessary evil in a movie where there's lots of extreme, confusing physics going on but at times it feels more like a dull science lecture than good drama.

Also, while I'm sure a lot of the science is very accurate, there's one extremely glaring point* in the movie where they conveniently ignore that gravity, like, exists and stuff. It was a far bigger "oversight" (I'm sure they were aware but ignored it for plot purposes) than anything I've heard of from Gravity.



*tiny spoiler alert:
They land on a planet orbiting a black hole, explicitly discussing the implications of its vast gravitational pull, yet they walk around the planet surface with comfortable ease.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

'Gravity' Accuracy Questioned By Neil deGrasse Tyson

Here's Everything Wrong With 'Gravity' As Told By Neil deGrasse Tyson

[yovargas]

That's really only one notable bit of "artistic license" with the science there which was having all the satellites on the same orbit. An understandable bit of license given their plot. Interstellar's big mistake bugs me a lot more because they tell it to you right before it happens!

[Frelga]

I've no time to Google links, but Tyson did a whole segment of his Star Talk podcast on everything that was right with Gravity, and said multiple times that any inaccuracies were justified by the artistic choices. Not that I care, not having seen the movie.

[Frelga]

Just saw this on Twitter from @RadioAstrology. "It is lucky we don't live near a spinning black hole. Horoscope calculations are complex enough without frame dragging."

[Passdagas the Brown]

'Gravity' Accuracy Questioned By Neil deGrasse Tyson

Here's Everything Wrong With 'Gravity' As Told By Neil deGrasse Tyson

Nice try, V-man. But you know you can't sneak something so thin past me. As you know, context is everything. Here's a more well-rounded assessment of what Neil DeGrasse Tyson feels about Gravity, which is very positive.

Headline: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson says his criticisms of 'Gravity' are a compliment to its quality":
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823 ... gh-quality

Some of the science elements of the film he explicitly praised in that article:

• "The 90-minute orbital time for objects at that altitude.
• The re-entry trails of disintegrated satellites, hauntingly reminiscent of the Columbia shuttle tragedy.
• Clooney's calm-under-stress character (I know dozens of astronauts like that).
• The stunning images from orbit transitioning from day to twilight to nighttime.
• The aurorae (northern lights) visible in the distance over the power regions.
• The thinness of Earth's atmosphere relative to Earth's size.
• The persistent conservation of angular and linear momentum.
• The speed of oncoming debris, if in fact it were to collide at orbital velocity.
• The transition from silence to sound between an unpressurized and pressurized airlock.
• The brilliantly portrayed tears of Bullock, leaving her eyes, drifting afloat in the capsule."

Not to mention the following quote from Tyson, which is very much at odds with Voronwë’s approach:

…he notes that he will "continue to offer observations of science in film — not as an expression of distaste or disgust but as a celebration of artists attempting to embrace all the forces of nature that surround us."

You’re welcome.

[Passdagas the Brown]

DP

[Voronwë the Faithful]

---------
Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[Primula Baggins]

A problem I had with the movie is that throughout the movie the characters spend chunks of time explaining relativity and whatnot to each other in very clunky "here's some exposition for the audience" mode. Perhaps a necessary evil in a movie where there's lots of extreme, confusing physics going on but at times it feels more like a dull science lecture than good drama.

Also, while I'm sure a lot of the science is very accurate, there's one extremely glaring point* in the movie where they conveniently ignore that gravity, like, exists and stuff. It was a far bigger "oversight" (I'm sure they were aware but ignored it for plot purposes) than anything I've heard of from Gravity.



*tiny spoiler alert:
They land on a planet orbiting a black hole, explicitly discussing the implications of its vast gravitational pull, yet they walk around the planet surface with comfortable ease.

I haven't seen the film yet, but what's shown there is accurate. A body in orbit (say, a planet, or anyone standing on a planet) doesn't feel the gravitational pull of the body it's orbiting around (say, a star). That's because "orbit" means the planet is falling around the star, like an elevator falling down a shaft (everyone inside floats . . . briefly). In the case of an orbit, the direction of the fall is such and the velocity is enough that the planet never gets any closer to the star. But it's still falling "toward" it.

Geek alert (tl;dnr):

There is still some gravitational force, but people on a planet's surface can't feel it. There's a tiny bit of gravity on a space station orbiting the earth, for example, which is why it's called "microgravity" rather than "zero gravity" if you're a geek like me. But it's barely measurable and is not detectable by people in the station.

We see the effects of the sun's gravity in the tides, which are caused by the difference in the force of gravitational attraction between the side of Earth facing the sun and the side of the Earth facing away from it. The net effect is a bulge of water facing the sun, and a similar bulge on the side facing away. The bulge moves as the Earth rotates. We can't ourselves feel the attraction the water does; we see it because there's so much water. But it's an effect of only a few feet up and down in open ocean (water squeezing against land makes the tides higher and lower there). And the ocean is miles deep, so it's really not a huge effect in proportion to that.

But if we were orbiting a black hole, with much higher gravity, not only would the tidal force be much greater, but the difference in that force between the two sides of the planet would also be greater the closer the planet was to the black hole. Hence the tsunami-like tides I saw images of in the trailers for this film.

Even more geek alert:

Very close to a black hole, the difference between the tug on the bow of a spaceship and the tug on the stern would be so great that the net effect would be to rip the ship apart. Same for anyone inside: feet and head would go their separate ways.

[yovargas]

Whoa...so you're saying that stuff on the surface of a planet orbiting a black hole could feel mostly just the planet's gravity but still have the huge time-shifting effects of relativity??

[Primula Baggins]

That I'll have to see. But yes, if they were far enough down the "gravity well" (close enough to the black hole), they would experience the relativistic effects.

[yovargas]

Physics is weird.

[River]

If scientists even bother with critiquing the science in a work of fiction, it's a sign that the creators of that fiction have done their homework.

I've been on the fence but I may try to see this in the theater.

[Primula Baggins]

It's probably the only reason (other than sheer visual wows) that I'm going to see it—as a story it apparently isn't great. But so few filmmakers even attempt to get things right in films about space travel! Even though reality is, well, so much weirder than most people know. Especially when you're talking high velocities, multiple dimensions, and massive black holes.

It also helps when you write SF to be able to stock your brain with reasonably reliable visual images of strange and exotic phenomena. The blank page where I might someday have to describe them will feel less blank if I've seen several good speculative images to add to the mathematical understanding I will have laboriously worked up. It's not that I can't imagine something; it's that I want to have the feeling I'm imagining reality.

[yovargas]

I was not too impressed with the movie's visuals overall (I seem to be in a minority on that) but the visuals of the crazy weird physics stuff is super cool, including some weird space stuff I've never seen before.

[Smaug's voice]

Well, I'm replying late due to thin schedules.
But I thought it was a very good film, both entertaining and engaging.
I couldn't see it in 3d, which I wanted to. I thought the visuals (especially the black hole and wormhole) were great, though not on level with Gravity.

I also think this was the most emotional of Nolan's movies. (quite a few Nolan fans may classify it as melodramatic even)

The characters, except for Cooper weren't that evolved. (except for young Murphy - Mackenzie Foy did a fabulous acting job imo)

I do think yovargas has a point, that ordinary audiences might feel too bogged down by all the theory. But for a Space and physics geek like me, it was great.

The script, at times is pure gold (the gentle night poem for instance) but it occasionally falls down to clichéd clunky lines (which didn't bother me that much).

The score was a disappointment though. I expected better from Zimmer. Even more, I'd have liked more stretches of silence in the track as in gravity.

I think it was perfectly paced though. I didn't feel it bloated ot overlong, except perhaps a fight sequence in the middle act.

Overall, I think it's a flawed but an unusually exciting film.