The movie is known for its scientific accuracy and i mean some things are accurate in the movie but i want to know how accurate it is. Do you also like the movie?
"Interstellar is a 2014 epic science fiction film co-written, directed and produced by Christopher Nolan. It stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, and Michael Caine. Set in a dystopian future where humanity is struggling to survive, the film follows a group of astronauts who travel through a wormhole near Saturn in search of a new home for mankind" - wikipedia
Updates
+1 y
I was fascinated by the miller's planet but i did not understand how there could be daylight when there is no sun/star and when it orbits a blackhole that sucks even light. I also want to know if it is even possible to orbit a blackhole. Do also think it is possible to turn earth into a 5 dimensional world like in "interstellar" ?
How accurate is the movie "interstellar" ? Do like the movie?
I mean Neil Degrasse Tyson served as a main consultant on it so it's probably one of the more accurate depictions. Some of the shit I'm 100% sure they got right: -The depiction of a black hole with the accretion disk visible around it is 100% accurate from what I've read and it's an artist's rendering based on the knowledge that the gravity (a force in the universe which is capable of bending time) would be so great that all light and matter getting sucked in is actually taking thousands of years to enter from the outside observer but only fractions of miliseconds from it's perspective and all the light is distorted around it as it enters over such a long time from the outside observer as a result. -A hole in space would indeed be a sphere, not a hole. So the wormhole and blackhole depicted are right off the bat the most accurate depictions of such events in space in any film thus far. There would never be disks in space, space is three-dimensional, not two. This is something I had never even considered until after the movie came out but it's been talked about in the astrology community for decades and is so obvious now when thought about. -That one planet they find Dr. Mann on with the mountainous clouds that are literally hard? Entirely feasible. It's super-condensed water and ionized gasses that essentially become a form of hard ice that's kept afloat in the atmosphere through a combination of internal air pockets and a lighter atmosphere and gravity. This would pose a massive hazard for air travel ontop of the fact that, as Mann failed to probably mention, what goes up must eventually come down in one form or another. Venus actually has this exact atmospheric composition: The planet is so close to the sun that rocks literally MELT, get turned into steam and gaseous form and rise up into the sky forming acidic clouds with a high density that eventually freeze and drop back to the ground again as molten acidic rain. It's the hottest and deadliest planet in the Sol System for a reason, it's basically space Australia.
Shit they got wrong: -Thus far, there is absolutely no known planet beyond Earth that has or is capable of sustaining liquid water on it's surface. This is huge because if there was, it would most likely mean that life exists on said planet since liquid surface water is one of the main requirements for life. There are BELIEVED to be planets in Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, etc. with liquid water on their surface. But we can't go there yet so we won't know for a long time. In our solar system, Europa, one of Saturn's moons, is believed to have liquid water underneath it's surface ice and could potentially harbour simple lifeforms (as in, pre-Cambrian-era) but, again, unable to properly explore yet.
It's accurate, for a sci-fi movie. Basically it's accurate in the sense that: "if this unrealistic thing was real, it would be kind of like this".
For example, it's *plausible* that wormholes exist and that they can link different points in spacetime, allowing for matter to travel very far across space.
It's very, very, very implausible that a spaceship could just fly through a wormhole and come out at the other end in one piece. Anything that enters a wormhole will most likely be torn to shreds and pooped out as a horrible mess of atoms at the other end.
But it is *possible* that such a stabilized wormhole does in fact exist somehow, since it doesn't necessarily violate what we know about physics so far.
But there are also highly unrealistic things in the movie, such as them escaping the event horizon of a black hole. I forgot how the movie claims they have done it, but it's physically impossible. Assuming we understand physics right, nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole because the velocity that's necessary for it simply cannot be achieved by any means (it's above that of speed of light).
I don't know what details in it are accurate for sure, but theoretically wormholes are possible, also massive black holes exists and distorts time. Just to clear out some things you did not understand. Black holes do not 'suck' things in. The gravity of a black hole works like any other object, it is just so dense that not even light can escape it. An object with a stable orbit around it will be fine outside a certain radius, like the Earth around the Sun. Earth is on its orbit and does not get closer to the Sun even though it is 333,000 times more massive. But objects with an unstable orbit get closer to the massive central object in a system over time. About the sunlight, I think there were also a normal star in the system. Without a star no life could ever potentially be on any of those planets.
@Tstrbrainer If it cannot escape when passing a point of no return then eventually it will end up inside a certain radius of the black hole, where the mass of the object is added to the black hole after it is destroyed by the strong gravitational force. Light has an energy which is converted into a mass too.
I meant to have written distortion of space time, but I mostly referred to the expansion of time in the case of the movie. Like that the time on the planet that is close to the massive black hole goes slower. Actually this expansion of time is seen even for smaller masses/lower gravitational forces than massive black holes. Like the time is different for satellites orbiting Earth than on the surface and for GPS systems this need to be accounted for to do precise location measurements.
I know my answers lack details, but that is because I don't remember them sooo well and I am sure you can find better information on it elsewhere. Like there are many nice videos on youtube with cool explanatory illustrations and so on :)
I realise I never answered if I like the movie xD... I really enjoy it, rewatched it several times. But it is not so much for the physics behind, though for example the expansion of time added a nice different perspective to this movie. I like space movies for the thrill and view of the setting, and the story progression, action and acting of this one was super. Love most of Nolan's movies for this. It is a pretty long movie but I kept my excitement all the way through.
I see you spend too much time watching Science Fiction. You do know that they call it fiction for a reason. You already mentioned things that wouldn't happen near a black hole.
1
7 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Lol yes but this movie is so well known for being "scientificically correct" to an extent. The movie is very popular and i watched it to know why
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ you dont get it. I know that everything about the movie is not correct. Some things in the movie are correct and physicists were involved in making the movie but it is not fully correct. I know it is called fiction for a reason as you said- no shit sherlock lol. I also like space, etc and this was also one of the reasons why I watched it and I also dont spend much time watching science fictions if you are so curious about it
So the end with him talking to her through these walls is probably bs but i saw an explanation about it and it has something to do with 5 dimensional world or whatever. I am not sure about it. I also find out that the planet can orbit a blackhole under some circumstaces.- "Normally an object that close would soon get sucked in. If the black hole is spinning fast, however, close stable orbits are possible." I am still not sure about it but whatever and thanks for your post and have a nice day
2.2K opinions shared on Entertainment & Arts topic.
A wormhole right next to Saturn that didn't interrupt it's orbit let alone other planets in a star system's orbit. That was hard to swallow. But I still found it enjoyable. What I did enjoy is the realistic message conveyed in a scared Matt Damon. That we are capable of caring very deeply for another member of our species. But that seldom extends beyond our own family ( or self interests). While I like Star Trek. It's the reason I reject Gene Roddenberry's vision. A future without money? Where betterment of ourselves is the driving force behind man? It'll never happen were are far too selfish as a species.
One of the scientists who worked with the movie released a book on the relevant scientific theories used in the movie, called 'The science of interstellar' by Kip Thorne.
For level of time dilation that was in movie they had blackhile in movie spinning faster that any black hole could realistically spin. There alway a line between the science and the entertainment that every movie has to draw. Stand-up maths on YouTube has video on it and explains it better talk about misconceptions about special relativity.
I really like the film. I don't know how accurate it is but it's very entertaining. The story and the acting is so good that I tend to get immersed in that rather than it's scientifc accuracy.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions