Re: Interstellar (Nolan)
Posted: Tue December 02, 2014 12:08 am
tesseracts?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Think about itBurtReynolds wrote:How exactly was it 'teed up' for a sequel, btw?
tesseracts?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Think about itBurtReynolds wrote:How exactly was it 'teed up' for a sequel, btw?
they purposefully kept the main ship out of the time-altering influence.E.H. Ruddock wrote:I have some questions about it, like why did the guy orbiting that planet age in earth years?Mecca wrote:what did you think about the "an hour on this planet costs us 7 years in earth time" relativity?E.H. Ruddock wrote:McConaghey said in a recent interview that this ending certainly leaves it "teed up for a sequel".
I will say, the one thing that was great about this movie was all the theory in it. I still find myself thinking about how it all worked/could work.
No. The planet they went toBurtReynolds wrote:tesseracts?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Think about itBurtReynolds wrote:How exactly was it 'teed up' for a sequel, btw?
But wasn't he just orbiting that planet? So if the planet was in the black hole time altering influence, wouldn't it's orbit be also?Mecca wrote:they purposefully kept the main ship out of the time-altering influence.E.H. Ruddock wrote:I have some questions about it, like why did the guy orbiting that planet age in earth years?Mecca wrote:what did you think about the "an hour on this planet costs us 7 years in earth time" relativity?E.H. Ruddock wrote:McConaghey said in a recent interview that this ending certainly leaves it "teed up for a sequel".
I will say, the one thing that was great about this movie was all the theory in it. I still find myself thinking about how it all worked/could work.
I was gonna make a Loki joke, but wasn't the planet named Loki?E.H. Ruddock wrote:No. The planet they went toBurtReynolds wrote:tesseracts?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Think about itBurtReynolds wrote:How exactly was it 'teed up' for a sequel, btw?
In orbit perpendicular to the black hole's field? Not that it makes any more sense, but anyway.E.H. Ruddock wrote:But wasn't he just orbiting that planet? So if the planet was in the black hole time altering influence, wouldn't it's orbit be also?Mecca wrote:they purposefully kept the main ship out of the time-altering influence.E.H. Ruddock wrote:I have some questions about it, like why did the guy orbiting that planet age in earth years?Mecca wrote:what did you think about the "an hour on this planet costs us 7 years in earth time" relativity?E.H. Ruddock wrote:McConaghey said in a recent interview that this ending certainly leaves it "teed up for a sequel".
I will say, the one thing that was great about this movie was all the theory in it. I still find myself thinking about how it all worked/could work.

I want to make a large printout of this and hang it on my wall.BurtReynolds wrote:this the best i could do, but its still stupid,
burt, if you don't draw us some cool-looking creatures i'm going to knock my milk over on my coloring bookBurtReynolds wrote:this the best i could do, but its still stupid,
You can't rush science, ruddo.E.H. Ruddock wrote:Well?
I have an issue with humans being able to survive on any planet within the pull of a black hole. The spaghetti effect would take place.BurtReynolds wrote:You can't rush science, ruddo.E.H. Ruddock wrote:Well?
my sister and brother in law both experience great difficulty in understanding space/time differentials.E.H. Ruddock wrote:Also, since I've been researching this extensively since I saw the movie, the time differential wouldn't be that great if they were somehow able to survive being near the black hole.