Christopher Nolan - Interstellar

[Halb]

Blaster72 said:

Sorry, I didn't mean it sound like that. Just meant that explanation isn't sinking in to my feeble brain. Thanks for trying though, its appreciated.

Watch the Stargate SG1 episode mentioned above about the black hole. It's like a lesson but done in an entertaining way.

[Eric Mc]

Blaster72 said:

Ok, still can't get my head around it. Would a digital clock placed on the ISS run slower/faster than an identical one left on earth - if so, in laymans terms why?

It will run slightly slower due to the speed at which it is orbiting the earth (17,500 mph). In fact, high precision clocks have been measured to run slower just by placing them in an airliner - which is only travelling at 600 mph or so.

[varsas]

Blaster72 said:

Ok, still can't get my head around it. Would a digital clock placed on the ISS run slower/faster than an identical one left on earth - if so, in laymans terms why?

It would run at a different speed, slightly slower...but that's more because of the relative velocity (speed) it's travelling at. You see time travels more slowly the faster you move through space. You have to understand that space and time are not two different things, they are part of the infrastructure of the universe....what we call space/time...and this is why gravity affects time too. Gravity warps space. Imagine a sheet suspended from the ground. Now you place snooker balls onto the sheet and they create a dip in the sheet, right? This is a bit like what planets, suns, black holes etc do to space-time...they distort it...bend it around themselves. Now, if space bends, and space and time are part of the same thing, then time will also bend and distort as space does. Hence someone near a massive object will experience a different rate of time then somoene who is not.

If you are asking about the actual nut-and-bolt mechanics of how that happens, then I can only suggest you read up about relativity to get the space/time bendy thing straight, and go from there but we don't yet fully understand how gravity (or time for that matter) work so you might not get a completly satisfying answer. If you do figure it out, post the answer on here and we'll share the nobel prize ;-)

P.S. A 'wormhole' doesn't just bend space/time, it punches a hole right through it.

Edited by varsas on Wednesday 14th October 17:29

[Blaster72]

Thankyou all for the explanations, I find it fascinating that time can be manipulated in this way and really can't get it squared away in my thick head.

I'll have to do some more reading up and see if I can make any sense of it.

[Halb]

Watching that episode, will help.

[JustinP1]

Blaster72 said:

Thankyou all for the explanations, I find it fascinating that time can be manipulated in this way and really can't get it squared away in my thick head.

I'll have to do some more reading up and see if I can make any sense of it.

If you're interested in that kind of stuff, I'd recommend the books, audiobooks, and TV programmes from Michio Kaku.

He is not only incredibly intelligent, but represents the ideas in a way that is not only understandable but mind-blowing and enjoyable.

[maffski]

This (YouTube), from Brian Cox, is the best explanation of time dilation I've seen. Plus it offers the exciting chance that we might fire Rufus Hound into a blackhole.

[Nom de ploom]

nice video thanks for that.

therefore large gravitational forces warp space time so much that the experiences of those observing a moving object are stretched effectively as the light information from the object comes under increasing gravitational forces "holding it back" from the observer?

but one second in time for someone at the event horizon is still one second in time for the observer surely?

I'think my gasket has just blown...

[Eric Mc]

Nom de ploom said:

nice video thanks for that.



but one second in time for someone at the event horizon is still one second in time for the observer surely?

That's the whole point - it isn't. Each party experiences a second of time the way they always would - but one observing the other would see something different.

[Nom de ploom]

so why the difference in time experience?

why if you spend 1 second in a high gravity situation that "lasts" longer than someone not as in the film? 1 hour equals 7 years?

i get that the observer sees things differently but what if they "look away" - sorry to be pedantic...

[Eric Mc]

The looking is not the issue. It's the being in a different gravity field that makes the difference.

[popeyewhite]

Nom de ploom said:

so why the difference in time experience?

why if you spend 1 second in a high gravity situation that "lasts" longer than someone not as in the film? 1 hour equals 7 years?

Very simply the enormous gravity of the black hole speeds up Miller's planet, causing time dilation. Relativity states the faster you go, the slower your time goes and this all means that if you're on Earth time goes faster compared to Miller's planet.


Found this:

[FurtiveFreddy]

Finally got round to watching this last night and was quite disappointed.

Far too many obvious nods to '2001' (it's marvellous that a 'space film' made in the 1960's has been so influential, but some of the scenes in Interstellar verge on plagiarism).

Plot and screenplay I thought were OK, but I started getting that sinking feeling as soon as TARS (or was it CASE) appeared. A lot of people spent a lot of time and money coming up with those robots. I'm obviously missing something.

The audio was a problem, particularly as our TV's remote control has a broken 'volume down' button, so I can turn the volume up to hear some of the softly spoken dialogue, only to be blasted by a bout of audio FX before I can make it across the room to bring the level down again. Our cats didn't appreciate this.

And, yes, there were focus issues which does bring me out of a film and back to the real world where I start to wonder how a DOP and Director can be happy with an end result containing so many flawed scenes.
Do they think the general public don't notice? Do they think technical mistakes can be overlooked as long as they're presenting us with the best performance in a particular scene?
Why spend so much time and money building special lenses and mixing formats to get a particular look when one of the side effects is a hit or miss approach to focus? Apparently, Nolan had similar problems in 'Dark Knight Rises'? He didn't learn from that then?

All in all, a wasted night for me, but at least it has spurred me on to try and fix my TV remote. It's that or a new telly.

[Moonhawk]

FurtiveFreddy said:

The audio was a problem, particularly as our TV's remote control has a broken 'volume down' button, so I can turn the volume up to hear some of the softly spoken dialogue, only to be blasted by a bout of audio FX before I can make it across the room to bring the level down again. Our cats didn't appreciate this.

And, yes, there were focus issues which does bring me out of a film and back to the real world where I start to wonder how a DOP and Director can be happy with an end result containing so many flawed scenes.
Do they think the general public don't notice? Do they think technical mistakes can be overlooked as long as they're presenting us with the best performance in a particular scene?
Why spend so much time and money building special lenses and mixing formats to get a particular look when one of the side effects is a hit or miss approach to focus? Apparently, Nolan had similar problems in 'Dark Knight Rises'? He didn't learn from that then?

The audio and visuals used in the film were entirely intentional, in an 'artsy - if you don't get it you are a philistine' kind of way.

Apparently the desire to actually hear the dialog in a movie that contains spoken words is soooo 2013

[Pommygranite]

I'm finding all of Nolans work like a good riddle. First time you try them you stick with it until the end but once you've done it you have no interest in doing it again.

Ever tried to watch Inception more than once? It's bloody impossible and tiresome.

Interstellar? Nah just the one viewing thanks.

Batman? Erm, good once, boring on repeat

[anonymous-user]

Pommygranite said:

I'm finding all of Nolans work like a good riddle. First time you try them you stick with it until the end but once you've done it you have no interest in doing it again.

Ever tried to watch Inception more than once? It's bloody impossible and tiresome.

Interstellar? Nah just the one viewing thanks.

Batman? Erm, good once, boring on repeat

Complete opposite for me - they get better with each subsequent viewing.

Sometimes it's because I have the story understood and that leaves me time to "relax" more and enjoy the visuals and the soundtrack. Other times, it enables me to take in the little things I missed first time round.

As is so obviously the case, different films affect different people in different ways. I'm just glad that the creative talents and imagination of so many people get put into celluloid or digital media so that we can be entertained in so many different ways.

[bloomen]

Amazing spectacle in places. The soundtrack is superb too. As for the story itself, I think it could've used a few more runs through the rewrite machine. It felt like a lost opportunity to me.

[Dog Star]

Pommygranite said:

I'm finding all of Nolans work like a good riddle. First time you try them you stick with it until the end but once you've done it you have no interest in doing it again.

Ever tried to watch Inception more than once? It's bloody impossible and tiresome.

Interstellar? Nah just the one viewing thanks.

Batman? Erm, good once, boring on repeat

Watched all of those several times - Inception I've lost count: cracking film.

[Motorsport_is_Expensive]

Pommygranite said:

I'm finding all of Nolans work like a good riddle. First time you try them you stick with it until the end but once you've done it you have no interest in doing it again.

Ever tried to watch Inception more than once? It's bloody impossible and tiresome.

Interstellar? Nah just the one viewing thanks.

Batman? Erm, good once, boring on repeat

I'm with you here. Nail on the head.

Once I've watched them, they're in there. There's no real desire to watch them again. Great films, but yeah.

I thought I was the only one! Haha.

[SWoll]

Motorsport_is_Expensive said:

Pommygranite said:

I'm finding all of Nolans work like a good riddle. First time you try them you stick with it until the end but once you've done it you have no interest in doing it again.

Ever tried to watch Inception more than once? It's bloody impossible and tiresome.

Interstellar? Nah just the one viewing thanks.

Batman? Erm, good once, boring on repeat

I'm with you here. Nail on the head.

Once I've watched them, they're in there. There's no real desire to watch them again. Great films, but yeah.

I thought I was the only one! Haha.

Totally agree regarding Interstellar, never been tempted to watch it again despite ample opportunity to do so. The rest however I've watched multiple times and will do again I'm sure.

OOI guys, are there any films that you do enjoy multiple viewings of?