Started By
Message

re: The official Interstellar thread (spoilers)

Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:42 am to
Posted by baytiger
Boston
Member since Dec 2007
46978 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:42 am to
quote:


I guess you missed some parts there, because it DOES matter to your argument. You just aren't thinking fourth dimensionaly.



ok, disregarding the redshift that the black hole would cause

let's say the ship's transponder sends out 4 "thumbs up" pings per hour

the ship lands there and is destroyed in a matter of 2-3 hours. so then, at maximum, 12 "thumbs up" pings are sent back to Earth. That's less than one per year (if I recall correctly the time between the initial departure and Matt McConaughey's arrival). Something would have to be terribly wrong with that planet and they would know it from Earth.

4 pings per hour would actually be a pretty generous assumption too as they'd want to waste as little power as possible with the transponders. If it's one ping per hour they would just assume the pilot died and that's that.

Besides, if the gravity from the black hole was so great to cause that kind of time dilation, then the tidal forces from it would pretty much ensure that the planet was a wasteland.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
109900 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:42 am to
quote:

I'm thinking that John Lithgow was probably born in the 70's or 80's. Maybe even 90's.


Yeah, I'm guessing Lithgow was born anywhere from the mid-80s to the late 90s. Doubt he's a 70s kid though.

quote:

Just by some of the dialogue about the past. I don't get the Moon landing thing. Was NASA so hated that they were removed from history?


It's not that NASA is hated, it's just ridiculously fricking embarrassing for them to have gone to the Moon and more or less put forth a politically incorrect version of history down in order to believe that we as a species are pretty much destined for mediocrity.

And that's really the way the world is actually working now. The world at large is saying we don't have time for that and that we have more minute and pointless things to do on Earth, rather than push ourselves forward as a species and save ourselves from certain extinction. Rest assured, that if mankind continues on the reckless path it is currently on, some variation of this film is inevitable. We are merely mortgaging the future of our species.

And to double down on the symbolism, this film was made in 2013. 2013-1972= 42; now compare this to the depression/dust bowl era: 1972-1930= 42. This film is supposed to also be symbolic on how far we came since the dust bowl to the moon landings, and then despite being just about equal times apart, we've gone nowhere, and merely worry about our places in the dirt, rather than going forward with our natural impulses in being pioneers and explorers.

If July 21st 2019 comes around, and especially December 7th 2022, and we haven't been back to the Moon, then we should be embarrassed as a species. It's mind boggling to me that people don't get this, and we need to change this to further ourselves as a species and save us from inevitable extinction.

quote:

If the world is now a one world government without borders, do we really think they let NASA have a blank check?


The film never says there is one world government.

quote:

If this did take place at least 60-70 years in the future, are we to think that vehicle production stopped in 2014, like it did in WW2?


While the vehicles look old, there's no conclusive proof for this either. Maybe they just stuck with a model after the Blight and ran with it for decades, since it's clear the world as a whole has given up on any type of innovation or creativity at this point.
Posted by baytiger
Boston
Member since Dec 2007
46978 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:44 am to
quote:


While the vehicles look old, there's no conclusive proof for this either. Maybe they just stuck with a model after the Blight and ran with it for decades, since it's clear the world as a whole has given up on any type of innovation or creativity at this point.
that's what I assumed too
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
109900 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:46 am to
quote:

regarding that first planet, wouldn't any signal coming from it be so badly redshifted that they would know everything down there is fricked, even from Earth? They should have known that planet was hopeless and just kept going.


This is really the only major thing that got to me in this movie. That planet should have without question been the final one they visited. Who cares if it's the closest one, since it's going to take you in the very least 7 years to return? Why not just go to Mann's and Edmond's planet, that have the benefit of not being affected by the time delation. That should have been the Mines of Moria route, not the first stop.
Posted by AngryBeavers
Member since Jun 2012
4554 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:50 am to
Just the fact that it's so close to a black hole would make me leery of it. I get it though it was confirmed to have water which made it enticing to them.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
109900 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 9:55 am to
quote:

What was the origin of the wormhole? We're told "they" (someone/-thing) put it there, and later McConaughey figures out that "they" is "us;" i.e., he sent the message to himself to find NASA for the first time, he sent the message to his daughter, etc. But if that's the case, then how did the wormhole get there in the first place? They couldn't have been to the other worlds (with other dimensions) without traveling through the wormhole to get there.


Because humans in the future become fifth dimensional beings, in that they can transcend both time and space almost completely. Dr. Manhattan for instance is a 4th dimensional being, in that he can only perceive things from his POV, but he sees his entire life simultaneously. Time is a line for fourth dimensional beings.

With fifth dimensional beings, time starts to divert as do realities. A fifth dimensional being would not have these parameters, and could appear in multiple realities and times. It's complex for sure, but here's a video explaining the dimensions: LINK
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 9:59 am
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Yeah, that bugged me so much. It took a huge Saturn V style three stage rocket to escape Earth's gravity, yet they can go to a planet with 30% more gravity than earth and fly right off, from water like a plane.
im just going to take a stab at this

if they had used anything else it might have looked like (to the citizens) that they were using funds for innovating. IMO the rocket was used to mask their mission.

considering the size of the ship, i wouldnt be surprised if NASA in the movie developed a type of propulsion that would be extremely more advanced than this.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:11 am
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:16 am to
quote:

And to double down on the symbolism, this film was made in 2013. 2013-1972= 42; now compare this to the depression/dust bowl era: 1972-1930= 42. This film is supposed to also be symbolic on how far we came since the dust bowl to the moon landings, and then despite being just about equal times apart, we've gone nowhere, and merely worry about our places in the dirt, rather than going forward with our natural impulses in being pioneers and explorers.


We've done a lot in those last 42 years. In fact those last 42 years have seen more scientific advancements than the previous 1,000.

Going somewhere else is expensive. Most of the people here are anti tax. So would you be fine with a Nasa tax? Say lets make it a consumption tax. 1% of the sale of all tangible goods and services goes to NASA. would you support it?
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:18 am to
you know the reason that the Space Plane doesn't need boosters is because it is dropped from high atmosphere?

Getting from the ground to 50,000 feet is maybe the biggest challenge.

If the rocket could take off like a plane on one planet, then it could take off that way from earth.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:19 am to
quote:



The film never says there is one world government.


"There are no militaries" "There are no armies"

these lines infer a one world government, IMO
Posted by AngryBeavers
Member since Jun 2012
4554 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:24 am to
So getting back to Matt Damon being a D-bag. He wanted to hijack the ship and fly back to earth or Edmunds planet?
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:24 am to
yea im just assuming in the 60 or so years NASA came up with a way that worked. obviously they would have thought about it since it would be a glaring problem. this is why i think the first rocket was to mask what they were doing.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:26 am
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:27 am to
quote:

Edmunds planet?



He was obsessed with plan B.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:28 am to
quote:

this is why i think the first rocket was to mask what they were doing.



Why mask it at all? If the ship can take off like a plane, why not just have it take off in secret.

Just admit it was a plot hole and move on
Posted by Indigold
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2013
1703 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:31 am to
When they said that "the ship had probably just landed on the first planet, she must have died about 20 minutes ago", I thought to myself, "well that's dumb." So they didn't realize that until they got there, but they knew about the time distortion of that planet before they got there. So why wouldn't they realize that the person there had not had enough time to do any kind of research on whether or not that planet was a good fit for future life?
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
109900 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:33 am to
quote:

We've done a lot in those last 42 years. In fact those last 42 years have seen more scientific advancements than the previous 1,000.


And why is that, you think? Do you think Silicon Valley was just something random that happened at the time that it did? No, it's because the people who grew up in the 60s and watched the Apollo missions got excited for science and engineering, and thus we got the men who dared to dream bigger about using things NASA is largely responsible for and taking them a step further. There has been an incredible decrease in the number of people seeking engineering and science degrees since the people who grew up with the Apollo missions. Now most of our scientists and engineers come from abroad, and they're no longer home grown. Give them something to strive for, like say Mars, and I guarantee you will see more students taking up those kind of jobs like they did in the 70s and early 80s. NASA is something that can inspire a nation to come together for a greater purpose. Now all those inventions are simply there for materialism.

quote:

Going somewhere else is expensive. Most of the people here are anti tax. So would you be fine with a Nasa tax? Say lets make it a consumption tax. 1% of the sale of all tangible goods and services goes to NASA. would you support it?


Abso-fricking-lutely, because NASA is estimated to return 7 dollars for every 1 spent on it. It is a very sound investment by our country. And NASA's budget is 3/10 of a penny on the tax dollar, and that's just embarrassing. In fact I would cut back sizably on the defense budget and give at least a penny on the tax dollar towards NASA, if not more. Space is the next great frontier, and the average asteroid that can be mined is estimated to have 15 trillion dollars worth of raw materials, not to mention the shite ton of Helium 3 and other elements found on the Moon. It may not pay off in say 10 years, but 30 or 40, you bet your arse it would, and it would cement America as the absolute powerhouse for a millennium.

This is the future, and as much bullshite as this country invests in, would you really not be comfortable with 1% of your tax paying dollar going to building a better future not only for our country, but for mankind as a whole and save us from inevitable extinction? Some variation of Interstellar will inevitably happen if we don't do it, and we may as well start now, since we're really over 40 years behind schedule. Go to the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, and it's just fricking embarrassing how the Saturn Rockets are actually more sophisticated than the shuttles we were launching in 2010.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:50 am
Posted by ShamelessPel
Metairie
Member since Apr 2013
12726 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:42 am to
quote:

OMLandshark


Eternal downvotes to however downvoted that long arse post.
Posted by Napoleon
Kenna
Member since Dec 2007
69386 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:44 am to
I agree with your entire post. My Grandpa worked for NASA in Huntsville and even held the patent on a polymer used on Skylabs wing. He never lets you forget that, lol.

I for one think we should have never stopped, that NASA should always have the next launch ready. That we should have put a lot more into a space station.

I read years ago that Paul Allen and Bransosn maybe had a plan to make a space station from space junk.
The plan was to get eight liquid fuel tanks from the Shuttle and affix them in a ring.



That would have allowed the first tests on artificial gravity. It's a shame that these great and executible ideas come up, and get passed on because of expense.

You are right, every dollar into NASA has yielded a huge return on the investment.
Kids today don't care about space, Space is boring to them.

I say, build a space station, start harvesting asteroids, and get back to the Moon.


FWIW I just pulled that consumption tax figure out of no-where, but I would support it.
(most wouldn't)
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:46 am
Posted by YumYum Sauce
Arkansas
Member since Nov 2010
8339 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:47 am to
Isn't NASA pretty much the most efficient gov't agency?
Posted by Indigold
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2013
1703 posts
Posted on 11/7/14 at 10:48 am to
So I had this thought watching it, so I'm gonna try to explain it all here.

Interstellar seemed to be the reverse of Inception. Characters go on extreme missions to get back/back to their children. But on these journeys, they face challenging obstacles. They have to go deeper/farther than any other person has ever gone. But in doing this, time is slowed down/sped up, which will possibly cause their mind to age and lose its memory/their children to age and possibly be gone by the time they return.

While Inception journeyed inward, Interstellar journeyed outward. Both done for the love of their children.
This post was edited on 11/7/14 at 10:51 am
Jump to page
Page First 7 8 9 10 11 ... 85
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 85Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram