So recently I rewatched Intestellar, and I was asking myself,

>>8581199
Interstellar is full of pseudoscience anyway

>>8581239
This. McConaughey isn't even a real actor.

>>8581239
cmon is a sci-fi. As long as they get the basic science right, they are allowed to make some weird things as long as it is fun.

File: 689478948.png (391KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 640x430px

>>8581243
That's what I like about black holes. I stay the same age and my daughter gets older.

>>8581199
I think the point of the movie was about following your heart or something

>>8581199
The accretion disk would obliterate them in reality but that wouldn't be as dramatically exciting as what actually happens

it has been explained that gargantua is a super-massive but weak and that it is relatively fine to get somewhat close to it

as advised by kip thorne, if he had no problem with it i think it question is answered

>>8581199
Well how close were they?

I never really got a good sense of scale

>>8581315
this sounds to me a lot like the appeal to authority fallacy

>>8581363
I mean, if they orbit the black hole, wouldn't they have to go through the accretion disk at some point eventually?

>>8581315
The hell is a weak black hole?

>>8581245
Which it didn't

What I don't get is why there are people out there who think Interstellar had any sort of realism while not thinking the same thing about other, obviously fake movies. What makes Interstellar so special in those people's eyes?

>>8581922
>What makes Interstellar so special in those people's eyes?

Better special effects, more convincing science mumbo jumbo in the script, etc.

>>8581921
Supermassive blackholes have negligible tidal forces at their event horizon. I think that's what anon means.

>>8581315
OK, what then about the X-ray emissions from the accretion disk?

>>8581239
>>8581245
>>8581922
>we didnt land on the moon, we just jew'd the cykas into bankrupting themselves
many 'i fucking love science' plebs jizzed themselves from McConaughey's retort.

>>8581199
I thought they said the radiation coming from the accretion disk is similar to our sun or something like that, and that's why that planet orbiting it was habitable.

So I'm just as confused as you are

>>8582135
It's a whole lot of bologne lad, that radiation would fly any living organisms within a reasonable distance, not to mention the incredible amount of heat given off

>>8582137
fry*

File: 1338243598256.png (534KB, 1192x953px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1192x953px

>>8582137
>that radiation would fry everything
>and the heat given off would too

>>8583453
Christopher Nolan pls

File: 1473530031097.jpg (156KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1920x1080px

>>8581938
right, but what are the odds that this thing happens to be accreting at the right temperature to have a similar spectral output as the sun? What happens when it runs out of matter to accrete(even if it takes a million years)? Why did they make a fuss about starting life from embryos on a planet that was barren and lifeless anyway? Couldn't they just have skipped the bullshit of getting to saturn and used mars instead? Also, why isn't the wormhhole destroying the solar system? They're basically double-ended black holes. If the sun was a black hole, it would be 2 miles wide. The wormhole looks at least that big, why isn't it fucking everything up?

>>8583552
Wait, fuck, thinking about it, isn't "ruined" earth ninety million times more preferable a place to try and sustain human life on than any of the shitholes mentioned in the story?

>>8583555
> isn't "ruined" earth ninety million times more preferable a place to try and sustain human life on than any of the shitholes mentioned in the story?
Yes.