What if the frozen clouds existed as being light in density, and also being suspended by being attached to mountains or something like that? Like, they're not technically floating, but it appears as such because of the scale of the structure. It could bring new meaning to the idea of avalanches.
All valid points but the glaring one to me, even on the first viewing, was the impossibility of achieving a hyperbolic trajectory from an orbit from a black hole. In short, a sling shot manoeuvre, like Voyager did around Jupiter or Saturn etc, is not possible. You would eventually return parabolically and not leave the system.
although much more complicated, it is absolutely possible and they explain the methods they pursued to make it possible in the movie just not as in depth as you would in a lab while theorizing
Let’s just pretend that Kip Thorne wasn’t the scientific advisor and executive producer of this film. Let’s also pretend that NDT and Michio Kaku haven’t also given their approval of the science behind the film. Smh.
I feel like the science fiction movies should get a pass for these mistakes, since we can’t really enjoy them otherwise. But there’s also a lot of things in astronomy that we currently have consensus on, but which are simultaneously debated… sometimes even being considered as “we might have been wrong”. Does dark matter exist? How do black holes actually work? Is our maths correct? etc. We often act like we know much more than we actually do. We’re still trying to figure out how to forecast solar storms and spot asteroids on collision course and so on. I guess my point is that I’m still expecting new science on black holes to blow my mind in the future ;)
Edit: You partially answered my question after I posted, but still did not specifically address the depth of the water, or lack of depth. Original comment: Convince me that it would be possible to get waves that tall in seas that shallow, under any circumstance. It's a tangent, but since you brought up the topic of such massive waves in the context of the film... and as long as we're debunking anyway...
Maybe if the planet had consistently shifting plates, it would be possible to have waves that large in water that shallow. Edit: @newshodgepodge6329 I mean, we don't know the intricacies of the planet. We don't even know if it's consistently shallow throughout the planet, I would hypothesize that it's probably not, and they just happened to land in a shallow portion of the planet. But I would definitely say that like earth, earthquakes or shifting plates could easily cause a wave that size. Btw, would earthquakes on another planet be called earthquakes because they're not on Earth or would they have another name?
Okay, hear me out, have you ever heard of a tsunami? You know they hit land?Well, if you are standing close to the beach when a tsunami is coming in, you will see how far the water recedes into the ocean right before the wave hits. Now imagine you are on a water world orbiting a black hole. The side facing the black hole will have a massive tsunami that circles the planet as the planet spins. Where they land on the water world is right before the tsunami so the water is shallow right before it. I hope this helps explain it. If it doesn't, you can try WATCHING HIS PREVIOUS VIDEOS ON THE OG ASTRUM.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has the answers to all these problems: The Infinite Improbability Drive and the Sub-Etha network :-D Interstellar is a pretty dull movie though. It's still less dull than 2001.
We just happen to discover the first ever wormehole in our own solar system? That seems abit unbelievable considering the hundreds of years of telescopes searching for them beforehand.
@catalinac7587 Not so keen on science fiction trying to do science fact, Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity etc. I prefer actual documentary science. If I watch science fiction it'll be Alien, The Thing, Predator or popcorn type action science fiction.
If mass would be negative, it means that it goes faster than light, which would be something we can't observe. So it always will be an unanswered question. The theory behind this is that, as long as we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed, we won't research beyond that. That's how current science works: Please don't research new fields as it may prove the current paradigm to be wrong.
My entire existence is characterized by profound suffering, depicted by deep despair and marked by a constant sense of anguish, filled with overwhelming distress and relentless misery. 😒😔 I perceive my sorrowful, grief-stricken life as entirely wretched. 😞
I kinda like them :). You don't have to listen to it. I suppose it's there because SO many people have said how they use the videos to fall asleep. Surely it doesn't cause anything harm?
If Matt Damon hadn't been a jerk in Interstellar, they wouldn't have left him behind in The Martian... just saying. 😹
😂😂😂
Maattt daaammoonn
Gold lol
I don't understand Matt didn't play that movie
😂😂😂
This nebula background is absolutely amazing.
What if the frozen clouds existed as being light in density, and also being suspended by being attached to mountains or something like that? Like, they're not technically floating, but it appears as such because of the scale of the structure. It could bring new meaning to the idea of avalanches.
Thanks for the lovely content as always Alex! Cheers!
All valid points but the glaring one to me, even on the first viewing, was the impossibility of achieving a hyperbolic trajectory from an orbit from a black hole. In short, a sling shot manoeuvre, like Voyager did around Jupiter or Saturn etc, is not possible. You would eventually return parabolically and not leave the system.
although much more complicated, it is absolutely possible and they explain the methods they pursued to make it possible in the movie just not as in depth as you would in a lab while theorizing
Let’s just pretend that Kip Thorne wasn’t the scientific advisor and executive producer of this film. Let’s also pretend that NDT and Michio Kaku haven’t also given their approval of the science behind the film. Smh.
What is the background music?
I love your spacescapes.
spacescapes
I now have a new favorite word.
Interstellar was alright until he went INTO the black hole and was pushing books in a tesseract or something...I dunno, it was odd.
I feel like the science fiction movies should get a pass for these mistakes, since we can’t really enjoy them otherwise. But there’s also a lot of things in astronomy that we currently have consensus on, but which are simultaneously debated… sometimes even being considered as “we might have been wrong”. Does dark matter exist? How do black holes actually work? Is our maths correct? etc.
We often act like we know much more than we actually do. We’re still trying to figure out how to forecast solar storms and spot asteroids on collision course and so on. I guess my point is that I’m still expecting new science on black holes to blow my mind in the future ;)
Brilliant videos I love your content you've a good voice for this subject 👍👍👍
Ebert? That you?
...Siskel... Siiissskkkeeelll...
@OrthodoxReview 😂
Your channel never disappoints ❤
Breaking my brain 💯 but it feels so good 🎉
Edit: You partially answered my question after I posted, but still did not specifically address the depth of the water, or lack of depth.
Original comment:
Convince me that it would be possible to get waves that tall in seas that shallow, under any circumstance. It's a tangent, but since you brought up the topic of such massive waves in the context of the film... and as long as we're debunking anyway...
Maybe if the planet had consistently shifting plates, it would be possible to have waves that large in water that shallow.
Edit: @newshodgepodge6329 I mean, we don't know the intricacies of the planet. We don't even know if it's consistently shallow throughout the planet, I would hypothesize that it's probably not, and they just happened to land in a shallow portion of the planet. But I would definitely say that like earth, earthquakes or shifting plates could easily cause a wave that size.
Btw, would earthquakes on another planet be called earthquakes because they're not on Earth or would they have another name?
@kristinholcomb5817 🤔
@@newshodgepodge6329 What???
The sea was shallow because most of its water was being pulled up into the wave
Okay, hear me out, have you ever heard of a tsunami? You know they hit land?Well, if you are standing close to the beach when a tsunami is coming in, you will see how far the water recedes into the ocean right before the wave hits.
Now imagine you are on a water world orbiting a black hole. The side facing the black hole will have a massive tsunami that circles the planet as the planet spins.
Where they land on the water world is right before the tsunami so the water is shallow right before it.
I hope this helps explain it. If it doesn't, you can try WATCHING HIS PREVIOUS VIDEOS ON THE OG ASTRUM.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has the answers to all these problems: The Infinite Improbability Drive and the Sub-Etha network :-D Interstellar is a pretty dull movie though. It's still less dull than 2001.
With the way Internet comments and sarcasm work, I can’t even tell if you are joking or not.
This video was vastly more interesting than Interstellar was.
I've tried watching that movie like 5 times now, and I've never managed to finish it.
We just happen to discover the first ever wormehole in our own solar system? That seems abit unbelievable considering the hundreds of years of telescopes searching for them beforehand.
I think they said the wormhole appears or rather is put there by the entities that help humanity
@catalinac7587 oh right. Maybe I should watch the movie at some point.
@@Edward-Slug You didn't? 😮 I really liked it even though the science isn't perfect. I love the idea of searching for habitable planets.
@catalinac7587 Not so keen on science fiction trying to do science fact, Interstellar, The Martian, Gravity etc. I prefer actual documentary science. If I watch science fiction it'll be Alien, The Thing, Predator or popcorn type action science fiction.
@@Edward-Sluginterstellar was best and Martian was second. Gravity was kind of bad
Did we watch different version of Interstellar?
Wouldn't dark energy possibly be similar to a negative mass?
If mass would be negative, it means that it goes faster than light, which would be something we can't observe. So it always will be an unanswered question. The theory behind this is that, as long as we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed, we won't research beyond that. That's how current science works: Please don't research new fields as it may prove the current paradigm to be wrong.
My entire existence is characterized by profound suffering, depicted by deep despair and marked by a constant sense of anguish, filled with overwhelming distress and relentless misery. 😒😔
I perceive my sorrowful, grief-stricken life as entirely wretched. 😞
Well maybe see a doctor. It helped me with the same.
Im on a bunch of meds for having this mindset
It's going to get better. Allow it.
Why are you commenting here,
Please don't do that 10 minutes of music without narration...
I kinda like them :). You don't have to listen to it.
I suppose it's there because SO many people have said how they use the videos to fall asleep. Surely it doesn't cause anything harm?
@VikingTeddy I also like them lol 😆
I thought it was a shite choice to begin with.
Interstellar was such a disappointing film
Why so? I actually enjoyed it 😊
contact is much better
Strongly disagree
Said no one ever
shape of the football is very round
Did you mean an american handegg?
Sir! A transmission from the bplanet 🪐