Movies that are Scientifically Accurate

it still holds up today as the greatest sci fi movie.

File: interstellar-1.jpg (112KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1280x720px

Art

>>78916907
>posters
>1

>>78916907
>>78917084

be contrarian all you want but i thought it was a great artistic expression on a forth dimensional room for a three dimensional being

>>78917811
what was the 'forth' dimension?

>>78917882
love

>>78917084
>>78916907
Looks great honestly. It's not perfect but it's much better movie than the yearly piece of shit Villeneuve flick

>>78917961
how is there love shown in that room?

>>78917882

Since it's not a dimension of classical mechanics, the fourth dimension doesn't have a name or designation as such. The fourth dimension is the fourth dimension, just like the fifth dimension is the fifth dimension. Since the room seen in those pictures has been called a "tesseract" in the script and in promotional material one can assume that the fourth dimension here is referring to the fourth dimension obtained by generalising three-dimensional Euclidian space.
So you one can either refer to it as the fourth Euclidian dimension or, if you will, as the fourth component of a 4D-vector...
Now, since an actual tesseract can only be PROJECTED into three-dimensional space and th movies offers, if anything, 2D-projection of a 3D-projection of a 4D-object, I can only say that the thing seen in this movie MIGHT look somewhat like what you'd see within a tesseract and thus it is indeed a pretty good artistic representation, as pointed out by
>>78917811

>>78918480
haha no

>>78918557
>>78917811

but of course. The thing is: I assume they figured out that way of depicting a tesseract by simply messing around with some 3D graphics software or maybe even a game engine, since the stretched lines appear to represent the surfaces of a tesseract you couldn't possibly actually SEE.
In some engines, if you try to map two textures to one surface it can happen that it glitches out and one texture will basically stretch into infinity. If you play around with that sort of glitch you might get an image which looks like whatever that model >>78917084 and its digitally enhanced counterpart ( >>78916907 ) was based on.

>>78916907
Ecept for the "sound in space"-thing, "The Martian" was somewhat more scientifically accurate.
The problem is that flying through a wormhole and surviving just strays too far from what has so far been deemed possible by science.

File: interstellar hair on lens.jpg (128KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1920x1080px

>>78916907
bet you werent autistic enough to spot the hair on the lens

>>78916907
time crystals

>>78920856
if there was a hair on the lens, then Nolan intended it to be there

>>78920883
Go back to /sci/, then backflip to /x/

>>78917882
It was time. Did you ppl even watch the movie?

Just how in the 3rd dimension, if you move around along the Z axis you change the 'z' value, on the tesseract if you move around you change the time value aka different moments in time within the same room

>>78921285
>implying that makes any sense at all

>>78918480
This is a good post, but it's worth adding that it's projected in that way solely as to be understood intuitively by a human

There is a webm of the bane plane scene where a series of small "screens" crawl around in a spiraling motion while playing the scene in sequence in a way so that if you follow one of them from start to finish you can watch the entire scene. This is done as a way to fit the entire scene within the limitations of a single 4mb file, which wouldn't be possible otherwise.

The tesseract shown here is the same thing but taken to the next level. A series of moments in time (the 4th dimension) constantly playing over and over but arranged in a way so that each moment is accessible to a being operating within the limitation of only being able to perceive time as moving in one direction.

It make perfect sense why are you all so stupid?

>>78921352
It makes sense if you aren't retarded

If you had to portray flexible chronological relationships to someone who couldn't understand them, you would absolutely use physical space to do it

>>78921285
see:
>>78918480
>>78918802

Euclidian n-space takes a while to get your head around but once you've grasped the basic concept it's not exactly "hard" to understand. Liek a reversible figure, you know.

>>78921428
You may have finally found a way to explain this to /tv/ after all these years

>>78921352
>>78918802
fourth dimension has always been time. go back to HS

It is also explained in the movie that the Tesseract is built by the 5D humans as a way for Cooper to interact with the 3D world. They never imply that is how 5D humans perceive time. In fact, the female doctor gives a better explanation of how 5D humans actually perceive time

File: bane scene.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>78921428
>>78921469
here i found it in another thread

>>78921285
>>78921484

Wait, I PARTIALLY retract this statement:
>>78921467

I got a bit carried away there. Of course in the movie the 4th dimension DOES indeed represent time, since each of the tesseract's surfaces that McConaughey's character sees, represents a different point in time.

BUT the real problem here is that the movie mixes up two very different models or rather two very different definitions of the term "dimension".

Time is only a dimension in classical mechanics. A tesseract, however, is an object in Euclidian n-space, which can't possibly be a subject of classical mechanics.
Thus the statement that time is the fourth dimension is true within the context of the movie. It's not true, however, within the context of the scientific models the movie depicts.

Dimension related autism aside, I loved the movie. Ignored the dumb portions, and liked the AI bants with the cast

Wonder what coop found when he went after Brandt, his time stretched but her didn't so she might not even be alive either but her colony stands

>>78921375
Yes, "intuitively" is indeed a rather important keyword here! I don't know whether you meant this in the context of the movie or in the context of the actual problem of 3D-projection. But that doesn't really matter, since you're right either way:
A tesseract isn't "intuitively understandable". I guess the analog here would be a picture of a cube with opaque surfaces: You can project it to the 2D plane as an isometric drawing and it's intuitively understandable that it's a cube.
You cannot, however, depict two opposing surfaces of the cube at the same time.

And that's why you can also project a tesseract to the 3D plane but you cannot depict all of its surfaces. Thus it gets really hard when you have to project it to the 2D plane, since you can depict even LESS of the object's surfaces, no matter if opaque or transparent.

Therefore it's downright impossible to depict the object in an intuitively understandable way.

>>78922414
>science equals autism

Why do you even watch science fiction movies?

File: 1483220785581.jpg (24KB, 377x428px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 377x428px

>>78921428
>>78921530

>>78922429
actually quite intersting. Thanks anon!

File: Blackhole Bait.png (845KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 1920x1080px

>>78916907