homepage Forums SimHQ Community Outer Space & Science Fiction Interstellar

I haven't heard any such claims about the movie, but that's fine, I haven't looked for them either.
Advisers have been used on tv and movies for decades. Not to turn a movie into a documentary, but to add a touch of realism here and there. To help where needed. Polishing, not rebuilding. Those who get off on poking holes in a good movie because it doesn't read like a dissertation just need to give up on movies entirely. Even if they did get to alter a movie to their satisfaction, some peer of theirs would do the exact same thing since these people almost NEVER reach a consensus on anything. LOL Some of these experts have completely different ideas than other experts. Someone's wrong! But no less wrong than those writing these movies--at least trying to entertain us and introduce something new to us.

Prof. Brian Cox was advisor on Sunshine.

Agree with RK, I think it's great when little nuggets of science are injected, even if there are loads of concessions. Better than nothing!

Absolutely RK, last time I checked Interstellar is a film and purely entertainment. Interstellar is not a documentary. Specialist advisers are used on lots of films to add that extra touch to make something special such as Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan.

agree

Anyone notice how much TARS looked like a monolith? Nice homage to 2001.

I don't see anything to argue with in
Roberto Trotta's comments. I may manage to
see the film in IMAX in the next week or so.
I will be disappointed if his understanding
of a time dilation effect being credited to
gravitation from a region of unexceptionally
strong gravity turns out be correct.

Is there even such a thing as a 100% factually correct science fiction movie that isn't a documentary? I enjoyed it, and despite things being wrong I still enjoyed it. When it comes to firearms in movies showing inaccurate things is sad because it has very largely shaped much of the public's "understanding" of them (if you could call it that). For the physics surrounding a black hole thankfully it falls a little more into the academic "yeah it's off but who cares"

I mean the fuel usage alone required for some of their maneuvers is silly, but really, I didn't care.

Of course, in theoretical physics you are mainly operating on theories. Theories themselves are not proven facts, thus the term "theory." You can claim that the movie doesn't adhere to a widely accepted theory, but that doesn't change the fact that a theory is still not a fact. So if Nolan used the most widely accepted theories to implement the use of worm holes and black holes, you still couldn't prove it. Yet.

OOOOOH!...pet peeve of mine...


In science, the term theory (or better termed, scientific theory), is not the same as the colloquial word theory, which implies a guess, while in science, it does not.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

FWIW Neil Tyson reckons the physics is pretty good in it.
http://www.nerdist.com/2014/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-tweets-his-mind-on-interstellar/

The theory is a step up from a hypothesis and a step under a law. To be a law, you have to prove it works AND that it always works, but that's often very hard to do. Hence the law of gravity, that one is pretty concrete.




The Jedi Master

Not quite. That is another generalization.

A Theory in science needs to have enough evidence, proof and validity as any Law. Your theory should be solid enough that you can accurately predict natural phenomena with precision, therefore, it cannot be a guess. Also it has to be peer reviewed and verified, just as a Law.

What is the difference?

A theory is formed with all the best knowledge, evidence and interpretation of experimental results as are available at the time it is presented. Therefore, as knowledge grows, this can be incorporated into the theory and can either validate it, alter it based on new knowledge, or completely disprove it. A Theory can also have exceptions or special cases, but these may or may not affect the validity of the main Theory, it might just apply at a different scale, or when other natural phenomena are present.

A Law usually is universally accepted and proven to be the correct answer or explanation of natural phenomena, and its validity is essential for the correct formulation of other Theories or Laws, therefore is considered a fundamental principle (like gravity, like Jedi said).

You can disprove a Theory with enough evidence and experimentation, and it might have minimum impact on other Theories. But disprove a Law, and you can easily be re-writing a whole branch of science.

That's what he said, he just said it more concisely. LOL
theory != law

Nope. He said a Theory is a step up from Hypothesis. If at all, a Theory is a step down from a Law.

The requirements of a Hypothesis are nowhere near the requirements for a Theory.

That is like saying that a book is a step up from a brochure.

If only I'd said that. Oh wait, I did.



It is. And a saga is a step up from a book. Just because you find my explanation too concise and would prefer a 500 word dissertation does not make it "wrong", it's just not precise.

I bow to your pedantic need for precision where none was called for.




The Jedi Master

When did I said it was wrong?.. I said "Not quite".


Steps to bake a cake:

Step 1: Pre Heat the Oven.

Step 2: Spray Baking pan
.
.
.
Step 12: Put mix in the oven

Step 13: Wait 30 minutes

Step 14: Take cake out of oven to cool.


You are saying that pre-heating the oven is a step below taking it out of the oven. Not false, but an oversimplification. If your words are literal, the previous statement is not accurate.

I just don't like oversimplification, especially when it comes to science. That already has brought enough misunderstandings.

Nitpicking. My kids do that all day long to each other. It's tiresome. LOL
Is a theory a step down from a hypothesis? No.
Is a theory on par with a hypothesis? No.
It's a step up.

Being argumentative doesn't change that what he said was correct and just fine for the level of conversation in CH.
Oversimplification is accepted in conversation to keep things moving. It doesn't mean that what was said was incorrect, just because more can be said, superfluously, on the subject.

My theory is that this thread is getting off topic

Off topic and pedantic.