Hi everyone, Alex here, here's the previous episode if you missed it: th-cam.com/video/OWeW6kTcoRg/w-d-xo.html I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who joined Patreon. Your membership is what allows me to keep Astrum what it is, and not what the algorithm looks for. bit.ly/4anEb5u
Naaaaaah.... THIS close to an active supermassive black holes accretion disk... Extreme radiation would melt anything organic in an enormous radius. Completely impossible.
I would like to visit all of them, but the amount of energy you would need to lose and then re-acquire to get from one to the other, is unfeasible. Also, even if the black hole had a relatively quiescent accretion disc, the radiation environment would still soup every cell in your body. Your last words wouldn't be, "Oh my god, it's full of stars", but rather, "Oh my god, I'm being shredded by Oh my god particles".
@@skateboardingjesus4006 You would actually start seeing stars... As radiation would interact with particles in your eye and appear as tiny flashes of light. And from there on, the closer you get to a black holes radiation, you would just melt on a molecular level, indeed. But you would never even get this close. It would start getting dangerous already when the black hole is 4 pixels big on a computer screen. Forget ever looking directly at an accretion disk around a super massive black hole. That would be like looking directly at a nuclear explosion an inch from your face. No spaceship material known to the periodic table can shield that.
@astrumspace Please make a video for your subscribers to let them know that a predicted book is revealed. It was mentioned in the Revelation. It was known even before christianity. As now the end times are, it started all the process on the Sun and also other planets. The book contains all the mysteries incl. matrix of the universe. Number tables were symbolically represented by the ancient people as seven golden lampstands, eight-pointed stars and plus much more other things are revealed. The book has also an important text message for humanity during end times. We must not let our civilization die. Information must be spread to people. Learn more about the book @frombook198 (Book 198) and share information for your 2 millions of subscribers. Thank you!
The waves of miller's planet aren't remotely possible. I'm surprised Alex missed this. If these were standing ways. Tides don't stand at steep gradient. You would only just notice the water getting deeper. You won't see a mile high wave on the horizon.
What I find interesting is in Interstellar the astronauts flew away from Earth in the usual old fashioned way… ROCKETS… but they flew off the 2 other planets using their small spacecraft. Apparently only at Earth, rockets are needed. I see that happening in other sci-fi movies as well.
Hm what was those planets like again? Cause if they have sufficiently weaker gravity or lacks an atmosphere to cause friction, coupled with the fact that their landing craft is a lot less massive then it makes sense that you don't need huge rockets. It would look something like when Neil and Buzz left the moon. The take-of looked so effortless a lot of people thought it was faked. lol
In a space you don't need a constant engine work to move. You need most of the fuel to flew away of the planet. When you have that option to use rocket to get you on the track - you use it. When you don't have a prepared rocket on a distant planet - you have to use your racing bolid's fuel to leave the planet.
It would be a hell of a lot easier for them to just fix Earth but then we wouldn't have a space movie. None of the planets they found are particularly good, which I think is the point of the film. We have one home and we have to protect it.
@@Scimarad It's a good exercise to try and build a theoretical closed system to sustain human life after an apocalypse. It'll teach people how everything is connected. You need about ten thousand people to avoid a genetic bottleneck and that colony in the film sure is not that big. As I recall the issue in the story on Earth was just a crop blight. Monoculture farming is definitely susceptible to that but it's not the end of the world because there are so many different crops people could use. Also different parts of the world would fare differently; China learned from the worst famine in human history and it hasn't been a problem there since, for example. Finding another Earth is still a holy grail of astronomy because, while there's probably simple life everywhere, we need very specific conditions for complex Earthlings to thrive.
The peculiar thing is, if we lived on a clean and ideal Earth and we found a reachable exo-planet very similar to the kind of Earth seen in post-apocalypse films that sends us racing for the stars, it would still be a magnificent find for settling on. Same gravity, magnetosphere, distance from it's star and exceptionally close to the conditions needed to establish a vibrant biosphere for optimal oxygenation. Yes, we're a greedy, shortsighted and stupid species.
Miller's planet, while makes for an amazing set piece, the fact that they even considered it for a colonizable planet is nuts. You would see from orbit the monstrous tidal waves, and the fact that the scouts would know that even if they could colonize a completely landless world, any colony there would be permanently time dilated and would be trapped in the gravity well of the black hole.
Now that I think about it, living in a time dilated planet would make long distance communication in space a breeze. "I sent a message to a place 2000 light years away. I should get a reply tomorrow..."
@@busteraycan The actual colonization process would be massively harder though - every single colony ship ever sent will basically arrive at the same time, meaning all of humanity is suddenly dumped on a planet with zero infrastructure.
If the benefit is saving all of humanity, and you're risking just one scout, while you have zero information on the other 11 scouts, I think Miller was correct in taking the chance. Considering 11 of 12 scouts failed to find viable planets, I'd say she was right to try.
Hi Alex McOlgan, thanks for putting a spoiler warning on a ten year old movie you've covered multiple times. You're doing a better job than 80% of youtubers out there by doing so. Sincerely, Watching Astrum.
The problem I have with the first planet is they treat time dilation as only happening on the surface, yet they would have been experiencing basically the same thing while they were in nearby space
Indeed you are correct, and time dilation would certainly apply nearby, (and therefore they would not specifically age, but time for them would pass more slowly). I have just published a theory of star and planet formation, which also explains how planets most certainly WILL form in accretion discs around black holes, or indeed any collapsing gas. I am still awaiting Peer Review of my theory, but would be delighted if you take a look - whilst the theory is very "new", it certainly appears to be backed up by data.
The Endurance was quite far from both Gargantua and Miller's planet, and it was far enough to not experience the main brunt of the time dilation, however, Miller's planet was not.
If you like realistic sci-fi stories I can recommend some books: Project Hail Mary - Andy Weir (same writer from The Martian) Dragon's Egg - Robert L. Forward Rendezvouz With Rama - Arthur C. Clarke (slow first book, but I great series) Project Hail Mary was the best book I've read in a long time. Definitely recommend that one ;)
Thanks! In the game medium, Outer Wilds. I think many know it, but it's definitely worth checking out. It utilises it's medium very well. It's more of an artistic expression than science fiction, buuuut, it's a very cool story. You can experience it once. And if you get spoilers that's kinda that. So very good playing it blind. Still, space related, and does make you think and dream.
The Expanse series is a must read for any scifi fan. First three books are as close as it gets to a hard scifi opera, while it still has some non-existent rocket technology but then it wouldn't be scifi
Blanet A blanet is a member of a hypothetical class of exoplanets that directly orbit black holes. Blanets are fundamentally similar to other planets; they have enough mass to be rounded by their own gravity, but are not massive enough to start thermonuclear fusion and become stars. Wikipedia
@@akwakatsaka1826 That's entirely a function of the mass of the "blanet". Not more or less difficult than to get into orbit around Earth, considering the humans could comfortably move on those bodies so the gravity should be close to 1g.
1. Mars is much closer than any of other planets. Why not colonize Mars instead? 2. We see in movie that some parasite destroy soil. OK. But also, if we were able to lunch orbital habitats with clean soil, it means we can clean up soil. Why not make isolated habitats on Earth, much cheaper than lunch and place it near Saturn (where Sun light is very good for agriculture.....Well that is separate topic)
Yeah, point 2 has always been my main complaint with the movie, the disaster they chose is one which moving off world doesn't help at all. You'll either bring the blight with you to the new planet, or you have good enough sterilization that you don't need to leave. Some big unstoppable astronomical event effecting the solar system, like the sun mysteriously dying or a rouge planet heading toward earth, would have made way more sense as a motive to have to leave.
If they can't terraform Earth they can't terraform Mars either. Colonizing Mars without terraforming would still be extremely difficult and very dangerous
Ok so while it's not actually stated in the movie, what if we assume it's not just the plants "dying" it's earth soil that's dying. If for some really odd reason earth soil stopped being nutrient rich for plants and this was followed by decades of drought (as is somewhat alluded to by the constant presence of dust and other elements you would consider dry) you could make the argument that moving to another planet isn't all that bad an idea. This way the premise makes more sense, we have the technology to make crops resistent to all sorts of things but if the ground simply refuses to provide nutrients and water to plants, well they can't grow then can they? Mars could simply have ground that isn't conducive to plants either, also mars isn't actually a good terraforming candidate at all. Besides its low gravity which really sucks, you have a ultra thin atmosphere without oxygen, extreme temperatures both low and high, no easily accesable water, large amounts of radiation etc. Given what we see in the film a earth like planet near gargantua would probably be easier to colonize than mars.
@@musicheaven1679 I always assumed it was some kind of virus that rapidly mutated preventing any sort of immunity, similar to HIV or Flu. Whether this directly attacks plants, or rather nitration bacteria in the soil, I don't know.
Ah yes, the classic, "Earth is becoming uninhabitable. Lets find an already uninhabitable planet and jump through extreme hoops to build a biodome there instead of building one on earth."
It doesn't have to make sense, its propaganda to justify a one-world government. The only reason you would need a world government is if there is a world catastrophe that only a one world government can solve. Since no such thing exists, they have to create one, just like De Beers created a false scarcity for diamonds and OPEC a false scarcity for oil. Its just fear mongering, relinquish your freedom and money to us, or the sky will fall.
For this longtime fan of the film that was a really fun grand tour, Alex. I especially appreciate how carefully you looked at the science behind the exoplanets depicted without ruining the movie as an accomplished piece of sci-fi filmmaking and storytelling.
@@jarlwhiterun7478 The first known film screening for the public for which viewers were asked to pay admission took place in Paris in 1888, with short film sequences that were a far cry from what we would consider a movie today. That was less than 140 years ago. Therapists and sociologists tell us that the most critical year in longterm human relationships is year 4. And you find it ludicrous when someone talks about their longterm admiration for a film that was released back in 2014? Okay, ... 🤔
Actually, none of the planets around the black hole need to be colonized. Once the technology was perfected to allow humanity to escape Earth and live within O'Neil Cylinder-type colonies, it would be completely viable to remain in our own solar system. By utilizing the resources found on the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets throughout our system, we could build a vast network of these habitats, creating a solar system-spanning, space-faring civilization.
That was one of the main points of the movie, that's what Murphy spent half of the movie working on, to solve the Gravity problem but for sending out Colonies.
Also don't forget: time dilation magically turns off in orbit but turns on when walking on the surface. Like that guy aged like 20 years or something even though he was in orbit of the same planet that the other characters experienced time dilation on. A lot of things about this movie make zero sense, which would be fine if the movie and it's fans didn't advertise it as being super big brained hard scientifically accurate and just embraced it for the fun science fantasy adventure that it is.
It was based on real physics calculations. The Miller planet's orbit is very close to the EH, whereas the spaceship is far enough that the gravity does not affect it that much.
Spot on! I think it's a great movie, because the drama is quite entertaining. But then people had to make it like it's a realistic movie, saying stuff like "fun fact, Interstellar is so scientifically accurate, that they hire a real physicist to make the black hole" or something like that. Lol
@@nurphurecarnium I enjoyed the movie, and part of what I enjoyed were the unrealistic but fascinating planets. Obviously in real life the interesting planets wouldn't be appropriate for a landing and those that would be mostly would be rocky and icy planets. Nolan also took a lot of liberty showing the story he wanted to show, particularly with time dilation, even if he did put some effort into grounding his scifi into something realistic. But damn were people insufferable when it came out. Fans were suddenly some physicists telling everyone that it's 100% accurate and you "didn't understand the movie" if you disagreed.
My main issue with this entire film is that all the candidate planets require some amount of terraforming and if that's possible then why not do the same on Earth so there's never a reason to have to leave in the first place? They even have a fully functional space habitat yet still fall back down a gravity well for unknown reasons... It's been a while since I saw the film so I might be missing some other issue that'd require them to abandon earth.
@@Wfalen Okay, so why weren't greenhouses an option? If they could get contaminated, then couldn't that blight spread to other worlds aboard a space ship too? Also still doesn't invalidate the issue with space habitats being a solution that's just conveniently ignored. Hell they could have escaped into space aboard space habitats, nuked earth into a molten wasteland, waited a few centuries, and resettled it. Still would have been easier to do that than to go to another star system and terraform distant worlds.
@@beskamir5977 i dont think we need do bombard it, but research a cure for the blight, or just let nature handle that, i am sure some bacteria would eventually develop resistance
@@pugofwarbr Agreed, developing a cure for that would be more reasonable than evacuating to another planet. Especially since another planet could easily have a similar blight that'd need to be terraformed out of existence. Just cause it's earth like, habitable, and has primitive plants and animals doesn't mean that humans can just show up and start breathing, drinking, and eating the local air, water, plants and animals. Actually, preexisting life only makes earth life even less likely to be able to exist there comfortably.
It's possible that Edmund's Planet is more Earthlike than it seems at first. After all - we only see a TINY area of it around the Campsite/Colony in that Desert area. But - as we should know by now - Earthlike planets don't only have one type of biome. We have deserts on Earth as well. But we also have forests, jungles and oceans. It's possible that Doctor Brand decided to start that colony in the desert area for consistency and safety. She can always use the lander to fly to other areas to explore. If there are any dangerous lifeforms in those other areas, they may be confined to those areas. If there are LARGE lifeforms like Dinosaurs, then they probably won't cross the desert to threaten the camp. Let's hope there are no Arrakis style sandworms in that Desert!
If your definition of earthlike includes flora and fauna then we have never seen one, ever. Earthlike usually just describes similar size, atmosphere, or terraforming potential
@@BoofPack69 Not exactly what I meant. But I suppose my language wasn't exact enough. When I said "dinosaur" or "sandworm" I meant something roughly the SIZE of those examples - with no other qualifier or description. Could be anything at all.
I love this movie but nothing about the blanet made a lick of sense and starkly contradicts every prediction ever made about the subject. That said, it was pretty awesome anyway.
@@mavis1108 science fiction has many times predicted reality. Science fiction can also be set in reality, just because a fictional crime thriller is fiction doesn't mean it can't be realistic. Don't be a needless smartass.
Bruh. ‘Contradicts every prediction’ is such a stupid thing to say. Many predictions contradict eachother. We barely even have actual imagery of a black hole as it is and we think we can definitely claim things about blanets? Hell, an entire concept presented in this video about blanets being unable to form around black holes can be remedied by something as simple as rogue planets; another prediction.
To this day i still dont understand why they even tried to land there. Even if it were the "perfect" planet, they knew about the time dilation and just that alone should have excluded the planet!
The only thing I remember back then, is that you could not question the plot of this movie without being bombarded with comments from fanboys, demanding high praises. There are so many questionable decisions by the crew, but "love" was the nail in the coffin for me.
Many studies have actually shown that planets with atmospheres and oceans would be able to redistribute heat pretty well. Ocean worlds in particular would be extremely good at heat redistribution, so depending on the temperature of the planet both the day and night sides would remain completely ice free. Also many models show the day side of tidally locked worlds may be extremely cloudy.
@@alleythetoaster8401 it would likely balance out, the temperature gradients at the edges would push instability and disrupt the clouds if it couldn't redistribute the heat well.
@@alleythetoaster8401 Greenhouse effect would distribute the sunlight beyond where there is direct exposure. Thus further aiding in temperature distribution.
There are four things that is living rent free on my mind which I visit from time to time from this movie. 1.) "No parent should have to watch their own child die" , and this exchange. 2.)Cooper : CASE , get ready to match our spin with the retro thrusters. CASE : It's not possible. Cooper : No, It's necessary. 3.) Cooper : "We agreed Dr. Brand, 90%: 4.) Cooper : "Once you're a Parent, your the ghost of your children's future." It might not be the most accurate movie, but it's one of the good ones. Also it's under Sci-Fi for a reason. P.S. I'm glad I'm not the only one sceptical about the Gargantuan System. This vid is now going to my permanent Astrum Playlist, Great vid as always!
I watched Interstellar in the cinema with my brothers, and we all burst out with laughter at #2... in the moment, it seemed such an incredibly corny line. Awesome movie otherwise.
@@jarlwhiterun7478 Drop all the insults you want. Only dorks uses "dorks" since they didn't know the actual word for it's meaning. A big helping of Irony if you ask me.
@@kaasmeester5903 You are not wrong though, It is a corny line.specially if you've been bought by the "Cooper's not a Trained NASA Pilot / Astronaut anymore, he is a Father" that movie was selling trough the first half of the movie.
13:12 WHA--? The captions just glitched at this point, showing a possibly scrapped part of the script. It's just two seconds long, but I need to point it out to look if I'm not wrong and everyone noticed it.
"Some Interstellar fans compare Edmunds to an ancient Mars, back when it had oceans" *My name is Walter Hartwell White, I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane*
@@TheDarkHour684 because of the strength of the wave there's no chance anyone would have survived that. But Doyle just stood there and let Brand in before him for some reason. Those few seconds of delay sealed his fate.
Doyle was floating face down in the water after the wave. I think it's likely that the forces accelerating him upwards would've smashed him to pieces against his spacesuit and probably smashed the visor with his head. I doubt he would be surviving that.
I actually did a whole essay on this movie for a film studies class in college. Nolan did his best to employ real scientists and astronomers to make the movie as realistic as he could. If you have the deluxe DVD, it comes with a whole documentary about this work with experts and animators in creating the movie
It seems they only focused on 2 things. 1. what a black hole with an accretion disc would look like. 2. time dilation. The rest was movie fantasy...and half the time dilation accretion disc stuff was still movie fantasy. The movie is 95% plot fantasy, 5% grounded in reality and common sense.
Kinda wished this was more in-depth. Coop outright pulls a conclusion outta nowhere when he says the tesseract was put there by *future humans of the 5th dimension* . Bruh, what? Oh yeah, and the solution to everything was love.
Considering the wormhole’s entrance was in our solar system and it took Coop directly to a black hole which housed the tesseract which then allowed him to exit BACK INTO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, it should be pretty easy to accept. Besides that it’s only logical that it was future humans. Coop never actually entered the black hole as nothing can escape it. He entered the tesseract that was placed there by the future humans. Once he experienced that, he understood that humans had to have ascended to the 5th dimension. Especially after visually experiencing the 4th dimension condensed to a 3rd dimensional view. That was a very deliberate construct; one only an intelligent species could pull off. As for love being the solution, you need to think a little deeper than that my man. It’s not the emotion of love. It’s the cause and effect of love. Coops love for his daughter and family allowed him to be willing to sacrifice himself to get the data on the black hole’s singularity (which was the whole point of the endeavor; to gather completely new data to study and hopefully solve some equations that would allow humans to better control gravity.) Coops was willing to do so because he wanted his family to survive. He also happened to be one of the smartest people to be able to pull something like that off. The whole idea of the movie is that humans need to work together. That we’re slowly destroying ourselves and our planet due to selfishness and greed. But caring for eachother and having those that are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good is what ultimately fuels our longevity. That if we keep having pockets of communities of people that don’t want to further anything but themselves, we’ll end up exactly like that dusty Earth. Coop wasn’t even willing to entertain the idea of the mission until the idea of his family came into play. He went through a transformative arc where he was PART of the problem but BECAME the solution. Anyway if the concept of 5th dimensional humans from the future confuses you, consider this; it’s a Bootstrap Paradox. Meaning for the 5th dimensional humans to even exist in the first place they would have had to overcome the dying planet issue. However how did they manage to do that without the information Coop learns? Because Coop can’t learn that information without being guided by the future humans. But the future humans can’t exist without Coop doing what he did.
@@TheSCPStudio he definitely went into the black hole which had the tesseract. Without that he wouldn't be able to go in the tesseract. I mean if he could just easily go in the tesseract then why did the future humans not put it just outside Earth or Saturn? Also he definitely had to go inside so Tars can fetch the black hole data that Murph required.
My biggest problem with the movie was the entire premise of the crisis. They explicitly said atmospheric nitrogen was feeding the blight, so just remove that from the equation. Not much nitrogen underwater, but there are plenty of plants and animals we can farm, not to mention other ways to grow without ordinary atmosphere.
I think they are a bit wishy washy with the difference between extinction and total societal collapse. An end of terrestrial agriculture would be an end of the world as we know it, but the human race would survive.
if you can terraform mars, an inhospitable planet, could you not more easily re-transform earth back to being hospitable, with much less risk and effort?
That is also the first thing that comes to my mind whenever there is discussion about terraforming Mars, Even if humanity really manages to mess up Earth, I think it is less likely that we would succeed in getting rid of all liquid water and atmosphere, contamination of all soil with perchlorate, and expose ourselves to lethal cosmic radiation due to no atmosphere. Then add much lower gravity that human bodies are not built for, and no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere. The only circumstances I can think terraforming mars could be a good idea for backup is if there is a giant asteroid much larger than the ones that killed the dinosaurs that essentially would cover earth surface in lava, and so worse than mars. Having said that, at a technological level terraforming another planet, it makes sense that we would also have the technology to deflect such an asteroid in time.
If gargantua is really a SUPERmassive black hole, then there is no possibility of any sort of "blanet" orbiting it. Blanets have to do with stellar-mass black holes. Also, its overwhelmingly likely that any black hole with an active accretion disk would render the habitable zone of the system far outside of the black hole's gravitational domain. Water would never exist in such systems.
Also, in the accretion disc matter is beeing streched down to the atoms cause of tidal forces, even far away from it tidal forces wouldnt allow for anything to form and would "spagettify" it immediatelly.
@@ltschumacher oh yeah we get incinerated immediately as soon as we get near a fire... yeah that's how it works. There's no gradual change of force, its immediate change, like a bubble of force field, as soon as you go inside that field, spaghetti baby!
the tides on Miller's planet simply don't make sense, regardless of Kip Thorne's "equations". tides are not waves in the common sense of that word, and he knows this. tides are a kind of pressure wave from the forces across the entire ocean added together (which is why tides don't cause your cup to overflow or your hair to stand up), while typical waves are caused by the steepening of an incoming pressure wave over a shallowing depth. Miller's planet has the same depth everywhere, so no waves are possible. the tides can push the local depth deeper and shallower, but this would be on a truly global scale, and not a vertical "wave" as seen in the movie. it's just to look cool, but is worse than "unlikely", it's literally impossible.
Tide is caused by gravitational pull, expecting a black holes gravity and a moons gravity to have the a similar effect on an ocean is insane According to The Science of Interstellar by Kip Thorne, Miller's planet is shaped a little like a football, with one end constantly pointing at Gargantua. The waves are literally tidal waves, so it's not the waves coming toward you, it's the planet rotating under you and the fixed waves slamming into you Water would absolutely get effected by a black hole, immense effected Plenty of brilliant minds have theorized such effects could be possible, but those are just theories, science is mostly an educated guess. But I'm gonna trust the educated guesses of some of the most brilliant minds to ever exist before I believe some random people on TH-cam comments
@@Repeatedlyreminded it's mentioned in the movie (and accompanying discussions by Kip Thorne) that the planet is completely covered by a shallow ocean.
So within the fictional world of this movie, I bet discovering a previously thought to be physically impossible phenomenon like those impossible waves would force physicists to rewrite so many laws of physics
I'm wondering - living on a planet with large time dilation, does it mean that when looking out into the cosmos, does one see the universe evolve at a greatly increased rate?
I wouldn’t think so, as a black hole doesn’t pull light faster than itself, so light should still reach you at the same rate as anywhere else. But who knows, 100’s of different theories on this.
exactly... imagine the ending of the movie... when Amelia Brand find out Cooper racing to her planet, through a telescope, she would witness a super fast rocket blazing through her sky, fastest thing she could observe among the stars... total observation from 1 day to night... while Cooper spend literally decades to actually get to her planet
Yes, the outside universe would appear faster, but it's already so slow that you wouldn't notice much difference in a human lifetime. The outside universe would also appear bluer and possibly brighter. Just as light escaping the hole is redshifted the light entering is blue shifted. Depending on how deep you are this might move some common frequencies into the visual spectrum. Red dwarf stars might become visible.
@@ericsmith6394 At that level of time dilation it would be a LOT brighter. They said 1 hour = 7 years. That's 61320 hours. So they'd probably be fried just by starlight alone, not even considering the radiation from the accretion disk..
Not a movie (yet), but try the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Very fascinating and elaborate and while not always an entertaining read (they can be quite technical), he certainly put a lot of thought into those books.
That was at least closer in accuracy. But even that one had lots of things wrong with it when you really analyze it. Worst of course was trying to propel his spacesuit by releasing gas from it.
How would you know the wormhole came out 10 billion years from Earth? None of the stars or galaxies would look the same shape or age even if you could see them.
Do you mean first planet outside of the solar system? I don't wanna seem like an asshole trying to correct you I just don't know what you mean by "first planet"
I do wonder what it would be like to live on a "blanet." Imagine how much actual knowledge of black holes we would have if Earth was within throwing distance of one, and our "solar" system would potentially be the whole galaxy.
While it would be extremely metal to have a "sun" that is actually a black holes accretion disk, in reality the intense x ray raduation would utterly destroy any life on a planet and strip away the atmosphere.
@@thesenate1844what are you even saying this for lol. It adds nothing. Do you think the commenter just means to pluck Earth out of Sol’s orbit and place it in a black holes orbit? Ofc it would kill everyone. But if life evolved in a planet around a black hole, surely it would have adapted to the radiation? Radiation isn’t inherently bad for life lol. OUR lives, sure. But cancer cells thrive off of radiation and they’re living organisms. The universe and life makes no sense despite how much we try to understand it. Do some deep delves into scientific topics and you’ll start to understand just how little we actually know.
It’s crazy to me that neither the video, nor anyone in the comments have pointed this out; but black hole accretion disks can be up to 10 Million° Celsius! This is due to the ridiculous amount of friction, which is due to the ridiculous rotational speed of the disk. And you’re telling me that ICE (of any element) managed to clump together to form planets? 🤨 Any solid objects in an accretion disk would immediately get vaporised by the heat. Have I missed something?
Living on a time dilated planet would be all kinds of messed up. The timespan of the rest of the universe would pass you by, any space exploration would be vastly inhibited since even moving locally within the hole-ar system is enough to radically change the time dilation.
Funny thing is that only a couple of days ago we had professor Kip Thorne giving us a lecture (at our department, in PUC-Rio) about the physics of Interestellar, the movie. He explained to us, in a very fun way, how the movie's ideas came out, as well as some of the technical liberties about the physics that the producers took. In fact, I found it amazing how even the most implausible parts were, at least a little bit, based on real world physics. It was a nice hour and half!
Something I've always wondered about "scientifically accurate" depictions of black holes is whether or not they would really look like their depictions to our naked eyes. Since the accretion disk is emitting lots of light, wouldn't the black hole just look like a giant point source of light to our naked eyes, the way our sun does?
Nah, the event horizon would still be pitch black. Light cannot escape and therefore it is by default, pure void black to look at. No reflection, no glow, nothing. Just literal lack of light.
@@BoofPack69 The light is coming from the accretion disk, not the hole itself. The "rings" over the top and from the bottom is just light from the accretion disk on the back side of the hole, bent over enough to come at us, but not enough to get sucked into the black hole. And the light from the accretion disk in front of the hole never got bent (much) at all. Black holes themselves are black, but they are surrounded by a shell of light that didn't quite fall into the hole.
The Interestellar team responsible for depicting the graphics of the BH did an image experiment that was quite nice. They visualized the Gargantua BH as viwed far away from its north pole direction, hence no lensing effects. Then they turned down contrast, to simulate haw a telescope looking it from far away would see. And they got an image that looked exactly like M87!!
If Gargantua was in the habit of collecting lots of rogue planets, we'd only see the ones that managed to not crash into anything and stabilize their orbits
It could indeed be remnants of the supernova that formed Gargantua, or rogue planets that were later captured and stabilized in orbit. Recent observations suggest that planets around black holes may be more common than previously thought. Black holes, much like stars, exert a strong gravitational influence that can capture nearby objects, although their gravity is concentrated in a smaller space. For example, if Gargantua formed from a star that had planets orbiting it, some of those planets might have survived the supernova or been scattered into new stable orbits over time. Additionally, a black hole's accretion disk could potentially provide material for planet formation under the right conditions, though much of the matter would likely end up falling into the black hole. The fact that supermassive black holes anchor entire galaxies demonstrates that objects can indeed maintain stable orbits around black holes at sufficiently large distances. For something as massive as Gargantua, it wouldn't be surprising if planets existed in stable orbits far enough from the intense gravitational effects near the event horizon.
OMG I WAS SO EXCITED FOR THIS! I watched interstellar for the first time a week ago and saw your video on gargantua (under which i left my long rant about the movie lol), in which you mentioned you would make one about the planets. And I couldnt find it. Im so glad it’s out - and perfect timing too.
You tell me this 10 years after release movie? All my dreams are gone, I feel more helpless than Matt Damon in Interstellar, The Martian and Band of Brothers combined.
I have a theory on Miller's planet. What if it was a rogue planet, wandering through the universe at high speeds, and, it just so happend that it got caught in Gargantua's gravitational field. Having just the right speed to not be pulled in, or escape the gravitational field, is something very unlikely for a rogue planet, but, not impossible. It could have been an ice world, and once it started orbiting around Gargantua, the ice melted. Now, this is all very unlikely, but we have to realize that, Miller's planet is about 10 bilion light years away from earth, showing just how the small the chances of this planet existing are.
A lot of the marketing focused on how much real science went into making the movie and how they had a notable physicist as an executive producer. I think it's fair to look at how realistic the planets are.
Alex, huge fan been watching for years and have seen all your videos starting from a realistic representation of the solar system. Last time I commented it was asking for a new video on venus and i like to think my comment wasnt overlooked because you delivered as you always do. Im always excited when i get a notification that you or Astrum Extra posted a new video. Anyways i was wondering if youve seen the netflix show “3 Body Problem” it incorporates aliens, quantum physics, and has a great story to it based on the Wow signal. I wanted to know if you thought maybe “3 Body Problem” was more realistic than alien, avatar, interstellar, or any other movies youve covered. Thanks!
Miller may be just a wandering planet when it is completely formed somewhere else and escaped. Then it accidentally captured by the gravity of the supermassive black hole and start to surround it in a stable orbit, Instead of form in the accretion disk. Everything may just be a super rare coincidence.😅😅😅
Thank you. Finally someone sensible. It always annoys me when people celebrate this movie as something rooted in science. When in fact, it's just a bunch of nonsense. So many logical flaws in it - from the immense radiation that would turn the planet so near a black hole into a plasma cloud, up to the orbital-mechanics-breaking departure from the black hole...
And thats why you arent a film maker lol. It's a Hollywood movie, nobody actually thinks it's 100% real but some do enjoy expressing the thought and wonder of the human mind when engaging in cool sci-fi stuff. I'd recommend watching some of the bonus content that explains some of the science that _inspired_ the movie, but Im sure even that won't make you any fun at parties.
@@nemui_tora ohh cry baby 🍼🍼 The OP is slandering people who say it is rooted in science. He isn't against your daddy Nolan or fans who love the movie without caring about science 😊.
I also think that the speed of light can't possibly be a constant. It's proven that gravity affects light. Sometimes bending it, sometimes not even letting it escape from black holes. They also say it takes the average photon 10,000 years just to get out of the Sun. So, wouldn't a laser pointed towards a black hole go a lot faster than one pointed away from inside its orbit? It makes less sense to say it's a constant the more I think of it. Say your looking at an eclipse and the light from the sun that's near the moon that's bending around it. If they all had speedometers the photons zipping around the Moon would be going faster towards the Moon then slower after passing it . The photons hitting your eye, if it were possible to track, would have lots of different ages from the moment they left Sol. Some would be 8 minutes old, some might be 7 minutes, and 59.9995 seconds old, some might be 8 minutes, and.000005 seconds old and so on. It means that depending on the gravity wells it interacts with at the moment it's measured, the velocity of every photon in the universe COULD have different speeds. And different rates of acceleration and deceleration. Am I going too fast? Lol 😂😆😅
Speed of light is constant. But there is space-time dilation, ie. it's the warping of lengths and durations which accomodate for the constancy of the speed of light. The major realization from the theory of relativity is that we don't actually live in an Euclidean space. The actual coordinate system is warped by gravity. The photon thing out of the Sun is not about a single photon. There is no straght line of sight that a photon could fly from the center to the edge. It will hit an electron of one of the nearby atoms and be absorbed via photo-electric effect, possibly knocking the electron into a higher orbital or even out of the atom. Then shortly afterwards it may be emmited again in some random direction. What they mean is this whole chain of events from the first photon in the center to the last one at the edge of the star which will then fly off... But it is important to note that a photon itself always flies at the speed of light.
putting aside the misunderstanding of gravity's effects on spacetime, we can easily prove/disprove your hypothesis (I guess it loosely qualifies as one). We can launch a spacecraft to move to a location far from earth on the other side of the sun and send a signal that passes close enough to be supposedly slowed down. At long enough distances, the discrepancy in signal arrival time should be easily resolved.
5:38 "not possible for Miller's planet to exist outside accretion disk" "This presents a problem, as in the film, we see the planet orbiting well beyond". Why cant the planet have formed in the accretion disk when the disk was larger, just like a star system. Over a long time the accretion disk becomes more stable as long as its not dragging in more material. Update: actually after rewatching maybe it was talking about the planet had to be in the plane of the disk which is not in some scenes
Its a completely engineered blackhole system. Someone had to have manually created it. Since the movie already has a temporal paradox some future civilization could have engineered it to violate physics as we understamd it in order to create the specific events required for him to go inside and transmit the information back in another paradoxical way.
Interstellar is my favorite movie of all time. I watch it every year, have seen dozens of deep dive TH-cam videos, yet I see something new every time. Such a rich, thought provoking movie.
I just don't understand how you wouldn't see a fast-moving, massive, mountain-wave across the planet before you go in. They were in orbit. Like... LOOK for 2 seconds?
I would argue the blanets and star formed during one of Gargantua's feeding frenzies eons ago. Perhaps the accretion disk during this feeding period was much larger and extended out to where the blanets were during the events of the movie. But there seems to be a G Type star in the system as well. So maybe Gargantua captured and consumed many of the planets belonging to the captured star with the 3 blanets surviving the cataclysm.
I can't stand Interstellar. I think what bothers me the most about it is that the movie made a huge deal about working with Kip Thorne to ensure scientific accuracy and purporting to be a "realistic" space movie, but then it throws a lot of that science out the window when it conflicts with the story or doesnt provide enough spectacle. The stellar navigation is especially bad, similar to Gravity with how they just magically ignore orbital mechanics and have infinite fuel for moving in the extremely steep gravity gradients around the black hole. The core plot itself is also a big headscratcher and doesnt make any logical sense. Then theres the ending thats just weird and magically works everything out. In a nutshell, this is full on space fantasy drama masquerading as hard sci-fi that teaches people who dont know about space absolutely wrong ideas about how things work and pushes a lot of pseudoscience as facts.
Well don't you just love it when a "dying" Earth, which still has oceans, habitable land, plants, forests, and all that good stuff is depicted as unliveable compared to a barren, seemingly dead rock? The most ridiculous concept in all these movies - and with a certain demographic today - is the idea that "colonizing" a dead rock millions of kilometres (or here: billions of lightyears) away is the easier option to solve environmental problems and provide a "plan B" for human civilisation... Too many people to this day confuse space travel and other planets with some kind of sci-fi Oregon Trail, without realizing that the odds of finding a planet that has Earth's gravity (+/- 15%), a breathable atmosphere, a good temperature range, the right amount and -kind of solar radiation, and a compatible soil, and inert or non-threatening biosphere are next to none. Let alone the challenge of getting there and building something, because "living off the land" would be virtually impossible without Warhammer 40k STC-like technology.
Miller's planet being outside of the accretion disk isn't an issue if you consider that may not be its original orbit. It could have formed in the accretion disk and then been pushed out after colliding with another planetary body. We certainly have evidence of our own solar system's planets changing orbits after large collisions early in their history. Or it could also be a rouge planet that got captured by Gargantua's gravity and eventually settled into a stable orbit.
I'm still wandering how the astronauts in the film reach objects of lightyears away by means of a conventional powered spaceship. But the descriptions of the different objects are speaking.
Did you not watch the movie? A wormhole opens near Saturn. Coop goes into hyper sleep for 2 years to reach that. They slingshot around Mars to reach Saturn. The wormhole takes them to the black hole. Coop attempts to enter the black hole but arrived in a tesseract created by 5th dimensional humans. The tesseract is designed to exit Coop back into our solar system where he was picked up by humans.
I've always hated this movie, it advertised itself as one that was scientifically made, and I just grabbed my head in disbelief how something like this could have passed. One thing that those planets didn't make any sense, but to even trying to land on a planet near a black hole knowing about time dilation? That idea just blows my head
This movie is a lot like the TV show The Big Bang Theory in that it made a bunch of dumb people feel smart and if you dared try to criticize it you were instantly labeled as too dumb to understand the science
@@JoshuaC0rbit So true, that is great comparison I remember watching Big Bang Theory with one of my sister(we are both science students, she is a math and physics teacher and I am a geophysicist), and we watched it to laugh at pseudoscience. As a scientist you can't watch TV these days, you see all this nonsense and you can't get into the show. The only show I've been able to watch lately is The Expanse, thanks to them not violating the laws of physics so much.
Well I mean, when you compare it to other Hollywood stuff, it is easily at least more scientifically accurate. It's just that the competition isn't that good.
I thought the whole movie was based on Kip Thorn's ideas. I should think they got him to consult. I also thought that EVERY object with significant gravity had a sweet spot for orbit. Like it's an obvious fact that's understood.
Could a blanet not theoretically get thrown partially out of orbit by another blanet so that it is outside the accretion disk? Or would this cause it to lose too much momentum?
I dunno I never take sci movies seriously enough to believe anything in them I just take it as entertainment. Yet I was surprised about the portrayal of the black hole being scientifically accurate like the way it looked.
The thing that hit me about the film: SPOILER ALERT: They were able to do so much, but still, old age and death was staring them in the face after all.
It wasn't a documentary, gang. It was a movie. Looking for scientific accuracy in a movie where Matthew McConaughey communicates with his daughter by knocking books off a shelf in the future in the past is probably not the best use of anyone's time. Better to spend that time just enjoying a really great movie.
I haven't read the book, but I strongly suspect that Dr Thorne meant that Miller has to orbit in the same plane as the accretion disk, not that it had to orbit within it.
A fascinating, extremely well-reasoned and researched video. :) One point (and I'm sure others have brought it up in the comments section): from what I've read, a global ocean actually could remain liquid on a tidally-locked planet, as the ocean would even out the temperatures between the hot side facing the sun and the cold side facing away.
Though it would not be able to support a large colony, I think it would be cool to inhabit a research colony on the surface (or in the clouds of) Mann's planet, which is being supplied by the colony on Edmund's planet. It would be really cool to find huge, suspended cliffs and giant chasms within the complex cloud layers on Mann's planet to see what caused them as well as figure out the source of the ammonia within the atmosphere.
Great video! One thing though... I thought the end of the film showed Dr Brand by herself on Edmund's planet. The only structure there was Edmund's shelter. Now, it has been some time since I've watched Interstellar so perhaps I'm mistaken.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the roche limit for the first planet. Planets can't even exist gravitationaly this close to a black hole, no planet has enough gravity to resist not being dismantled by the blackhole.
Naaaaaah.... THIS close to an active supermassive black holes accretion disk... Extreme radiation would melt anything organic in an enormous radius. Completely impossible.
i assume the density of the particles in the accretion disk is still so large, that we could fit entire plants in between the individual particles. the volume of the spacial grid is exponentially large than we could comprehend. Obviously the radiation would vapourise any mater, but it will be the function of the distance to the event horizon which gives the density of accretion disk itself. following this idea, we can place a planet on the outskirts of the disk without worrying about harmful radiation.
@@deepak_nigwal Problem with that is that planets arent simply placed. They have to grow there, otherwise there is no way it would be "captured" by the black hole and sort of just find its way into a viable orbit. An accretion disk is the most violent area in the universeI have a big problem picturing a stabile, rocky planet with an atmosphere, solid ground, and water that behaves weirdly, would be viable in that environment. That close to a supermassive black hole, it would move extremely fast, probably be an egg-shaped gas giant with all kinds of heavy elements as its literally made out of the final death throws of a star under extremely turbulent conditions, bombarded with unimaginable radiation.
Many brilliant minds have pondered, discussed, and made estimations and educated guesses. Now I'm not saying they're right, and neither are they, they're just making educated guesses, but imma believe them over some random people commenting on TH-cam A lot of brilliant people say it's atleast possible with our current understanding of things
@@Luc_B63 Dude come on. There is a habitable zone around most bodies of radiation. Do you actually believe that the habitable zone of a supermassive black hole is in the accretion disk of the supermassibe black hole? The black hole glows like a star due to the accretion disk. It's like putting Earth on the Sun's surface. Thorne has only said that under such and such circumstances a planet could form in a black hole's accretion disk. But anybody who believes that planet would be habitable is an idiot and should have their scientific titles taken away.
Next do a video on why they needed a Saturn V if they could jump around from planet to planet so easily once they got to the other side of the wormhole.
But you do not talk much about Edmunds in this video, what makes that planet so special that a life-supporting environment is present there. How can Edmunds have that while being close to a black hole?
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi everyone, Alex here, here's the previous episode if you missed it: th-cam.com/video/OWeW6kTcoRg/w-d-xo.html
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who joined Patreon. Your membership is what allows me to keep Astrum what it is, and not what the algorithm looks for. bit.ly/4anEb5u
Naaaaaah.... THIS close to an active supermassive black holes accretion disk... Extreme radiation would melt anything organic in an enormous radius. Completely impossible.
I would like to visit all of them, but the amount of energy you would need to lose and then re-acquire to get from one to the other, is unfeasible. Also, even if the black hole had a relatively quiescent accretion disc, the radiation environment would still soup every cell in your body. Your last words wouldn't be,
"Oh my god, it's full of stars",
but rather,
"Oh my god, I'm being shredded by Oh my god particles".
@@skateboardingjesus4006
You would actually start seeing stars... As radiation would interact with particles in your eye and appear as tiny flashes of light. And from there on, the closer you get to a black holes radiation, you would just melt on a molecular level, indeed.
But you would never even get this close. It would start getting dangerous already when the black hole is 4 pixels big on a computer screen. Forget ever looking directly at an accretion disk around a super massive black hole.
That would be like looking directly at a nuclear explosion an inch from your face. No spaceship material known to the periodic table can shield that.
@astrumspace Please make a video for your subscribers to let them know that a predicted book is revealed. It was mentioned in the Revelation. It was known even before christianity. As now the end times are, it started all the process on the Sun and also other planets. The book contains all the mysteries incl. matrix of the universe. Number tables were symbolically represented by the ancient people as seven golden lampstands, eight-pointed stars and plus much more other things are revealed. The book has also an important text message for humanity during end times. We must not let our civilization die. Information must be spread to people. Learn more about the book @frombook198 (Book 198) and share information for your 2 millions of subscribers. Thank you!
The waves of miller's planet aren't remotely possible. I'm surprised Alex missed this.
If these were standing ways. Tides don't stand at steep gradient. You would only just notice the water getting deeper. You won't see a mile high wave on the horizon.
What I find interesting is in Interstellar the astronauts flew away from Earth in the usual old fashioned way… ROCKETS… but they flew off the 2 other planets using their small spacecraft. Apparently only at Earth, rockets are needed. I see that happening in other sci-fi movies as well.
Yeah, earth has a huge gravity well for its size.... But if I recall, the tidal wave planet had even higher gravity.
Especially on Miller's planet
Hm what was those planets like again? Cause if they have sufficiently weaker gravity or lacks an atmosphere to cause friction, coupled with the fact that their landing craft is a lot less massive then it makes sense that you don't need huge rockets. It would look something like when Neil and Buzz left the moon. The take-of looked so effortless a lot of people thought it was faked. lol
@@Horus070 the planets gravity itself is weak garagantuas gravitational influence on the planet is strong there's a difference
In a space you don't need a constant engine work to move. You need most of the fuel to flew away of the planet. When you have that option to use rocket to get you on the track - you use it. When you don't have a prepared rocket on a distant planet - you have to use your racing bolid's fuel to leave the planet.
It would be a hell of a lot easier for them to just fix Earth but then we wouldn't have a space movie. None of the planets they found are particularly good, which I think is the point of the film. We have one home and we have to protect it.
Yeah, I always have an issue with this. If you are going to have to create environments in which humans can live then they might as well do that here!
@@Scimarad soemwhere else we can leave the conservatives back? :D but still, earth is better
@@Scimarad It's a good exercise to try and build a theoretical closed system to sustain human life after an apocalypse. It'll teach people how everything is connected. You need about ten thousand people to avoid a genetic bottleneck and that colony in the film sure is not that big.
As I recall the issue in the story on Earth was just a crop blight. Monoculture farming is definitely susceptible to that but it's not the end of the world because there are so many different crops people could use. Also different parts of the world would fare differently; China learned from the worst famine in human history and it hasn't been a problem there since, for example.
Finding another Earth is still a holy grail of astronomy because, while there's probably simple life everywhere, we need very specific conditions for complex Earthlings to thrive.
@@certaindeath7776what is the point of this comment?
The peculiar thing is, if we lived on a clean and ideal Earth and we found a reachable exo-planet very similar to the kind of Earth seen in post-apocalypse films that sends us racing for the stars, it would still be a magnificent find for settling on. Same gravity, magnetosphere, distance from it's star and exceptionally close to the conditions needed to establish a vibrant biosphere for optimal oxygenation.
Yes, we're a greedy, shortsighted and stupid species.
Miller's planet, while makes for an amazing set piece, the fact that they even considered it for a colonizable planet is nuts. You would see from orbit the monstrous tidal waves, and the fact that the scouts would know that even if they could colonize a completely landless world, any colony there would be permanently time dilated and would be trapped in the gravity well of the black hole.
Now that I think about it, living in a time dilated planet would make long distance communication in space a breeze.
"I sent a message to a place 2000 light years away. I should get a reply tomorrow..."
@@busteraycan The actual colonization process would be massively harder though - every single colony ship ever sent will basically arrive at the same time, meaning all of humanity is suddenly dumped on a planet with zero infrastructure.
I think the tidal waves were mistaken for mountain ranges, due to the time dilation causing them to move so slowly that they appeared motionless.
If the benefit is saving all of humanity, and you're risking just one scout, while you have zero information on the other 11 scouts, I think Miller was correct in taking the chance. Considering 11 of 12 scouts failed to find viable planets, I'd say she was right to try.
👆🤓
Hi Alex McOlgan, thanks for putting a spoiler warning on a ten year old movie you've covered multiple times. You're doing a better job than 80% of youtubers out there by doing so. Sincerely, Watching Astrum.
For real, Interstellar is one of those movies that is a MUST blind watch once in your lifetime.
🙄
@@TheOneWhoIsBuiltDifferent😒🥱
I thought Interstellar was boring and the themes were eye-rolling.
@@glennbabic5954we’re happy for you. 👍🏽🙄
The problem I have with the first planet is they treat time dilation as only happening on the surface, yet they would have been experiencing basically the same thing while they were in nearby space
Didn't they? The scientist on the endurance orbiting aged 23 years
@@indiadeadly thats the issue lol
😢
Indeed you are correct, and time dilation would certainly apply nearby, (and therefore they would not specifically age, but time for them would pass more slowly). I have just published a theory of star and planet formation, which also explains how planets most certainly WILL form in accretion discs around black holes, or indeed any collapsing gas. I am still awaiting Peer Review of my theory, but would be delighted if you take a look - whilst the theory is very "new", it certainly appears to be backed up by data.
The Endurance was quite far from both Gargantua and Miller's planet, and it was far enough to not experience the main brunt of the time dilation, however, Miller's planet was not.
If you like realistic sci-fi stories I can recommend some books:
Project Hail Mary - Andy Weir (same writer from The Martian)
Dragon's Egg - Robert L. Forward
Rendezvouz With Rama - Arthur C. Clarke (slow first book, but I great series)
Project Hail Mary was the best book I've read in a long time. Definitely recommend that one ;)
Contact - Carl Sagan. This one is also a must-read imo.
Thanks! In the game medium, Outer Wilds. I think many know it, but it's definitely worth checking out. It utilises it's medium very well. It's more of an artistic expression than science fiction, buuuut, it's a very cool story. You can experience it once. And if you get spoilers that's kinda that. So very good playing it blind. Still, space related, and does make you think and dream.
Project Hail Mary deserves a movie
Can recommend these. Good reading.
The Expanse series is a must read for any scifi fan. First three books are as close as it gets to a hard scifi opera, while it still has some non-existent rocket technology but then it wouldn't be scifi
The first thing I noticed was the proximity to the accretion disc. Imagine the radiation ☢️
they would've cooked.
Blanet
A blanet is a member of a hypothetical class of exoplanets that directly orbit black holes. Blanets are fundamentally similar to other planets; they have enough mass to be rounded by their own gravity, but are not massive enough to start thermonuclear fusion and become stars. Wikipedia
Thanks, Mr. Bot.
Yeah, just like planet. Like Jupiter. That's a planet, but isn't massive enough to be a star.
What's wrong with saying "planets orbiting a black hole", or "type X,Y etc. planet"? There's always a new weird word being invented every few years.
Imagine the delta V requirements to get off the surface of these “Blanets” and into orbit …. Simply impossible
@@akwakatsaka1826 That's entirely a function of the mass of the "blanet". Not more or less difficult than to get into orbit around Earth, considering the humans could comfortably move on those bodies so the gravity should be close to 1g.
1. Mars is much closer than any of other planets. Why not colonize Mars instead?
2. We see in movie that some parasite destroy soil. OK. But also, if we were able to lunch orbital habitats with clean soil, it means we can clean up soil. Why not make isolated habitats on Earth, much cheaper than lunch and place it near Saturn (where Sun light is very good for agriculture.....Well that is separate topic)
Yeah, point 2 has always been my main complaint with the movie, the disaster they chose is one which moving off world doesn't help at all. You'll either bring the blight with you to the new planet, or you have good enough sterilization that you don't need to leave. Some big unstoppable astronomical event effecting the solar system, like the sun mysteriously dying or a rouge planet heading toward earth, would have made way more sense as a motive to have to leave.
Recolonize earth
If they can't terraform Earth they can't terraform Mars either. Colonizing Mars without terraforming would still be extremely difficult and very dangerous
Ok so while it's not actually stated in the movie, what if we assume it's not just the plants "dying" it's earth soil that's dying. If for some really odd reason earth soil stopped being nutrient rich for plants and this was followed by decades of drought (as is somewhat alluded to by the constant presence of dust and other elements you would consider dry) you could make the argument that moving to another planet isn't all that bad an idea. This way the premise makes more sense, we have the technology to make crops resistent to all sorts of things but if the ground simply refuses to provide nutrients and water to plants, well they can't grow then can they? Mars could simply have ground that isn't conducive to plants either, also mars isn't actually a good terraforming candidate at all. Besides its low gravity which really sucks, you have a ultra thin atmosphere without oxygen, extreme temperatures both low and high, no easily accesable water, large amounts of radiation etc. Given what we see in the film a earth like planet near gargantua would probably be easier to colonize than mars.
@@musicheaven1679 I always assumed it was some kind of virus that rapidly mutated preventing any sort of immunity, similar to HIV or Flu. Whether this directly attacks plants, or rather nitration bacteria in the soil, I don't know.
Ah yes, the classic, "Earth is becoming uninhabitable. Lets find an already uninhabitable planet and jump through extreme hoops to build a biodome there instead of building one on earth."
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Thats not what happened in the film tho
@@xhogan89x Yes it was. They have gone to worse planets instead of fixing earth.
@@ylfaer it wasnt their fault. They followed the pings they got from the other astronauts
It doesn't have to make sense, its propaganda to justify a one-world government. The only reason you would need a world government is if there is a world catastrophe that only a one world government can solve. Since no such thing exists, they have to create one, just like De Beers created a false scarcity for diamonds and OPEC a false scarcity for oil. Its just fear mongering, relinquish your freedom and money to us, or the sky will fall.
For this longtime fan of the film that was a really fun grand tour, Alex. I especially appreciate how carefully you looked at the science behind the exoplanets depicted without ruining the movie as an accomplished piece of sci-fi filmmaking and storytelling.
A longtime fan of a movie that just turned 10 lul
@@jarlwhiterun7478 The first known film screening for the public for which viewers were asked to pay admission took place in Paris in 1888, with short film sequences that were a far cry from what we would consider a movie today. That was less than 140 years ago. Therapists and sociologists tell us that the most critical year in longterm human relationships is year 4. And you find it ludicrous when someone talks about their longterm admiration for a film that was released back in 2014? Okay, ... 🤔
Actually, none of the planets around the black hole need to be colonized. Once the technology was perfected to allow humanity to escape Earth and live within O'Neil Cylinder-type colonies, it would be completely viable to remain in our own solar system. By utilizing the resources found on the planets, moons, asteroids, and comets throughout our system, we could build a vast network of these habitats, creating a solar system-spanning, space-faring civilization.
Like in "The Expanse" though Earth didn't become inhabitable
That was one of the main points of the movie, that's what Murphy spent half of the movie working on, to solve the Gravity problem but for sending out Colonies.
You didnt watch the movie did you 💀
@@ZeloticMemes he clearly did, how does it no make sense what he said in the context of the movie?
@@alejandrovallejo4330 Since he came up with an idea that literally was in the movie bro
Also don't forget: time dilation magically turns off in orbit but turns on when walking on the surface. Like that guy aged like 20 years or something even though he was in orbit of the same planet that the other characters experienced time dilation on. A lot of things about this movie make zero sense, which would be fine if the movie and it's fans didn't advertise it as being super big brained hard scientifically accurate and just embraced it for the fun science fantasy adventure that it is.
It was based on real physics calculations. The Miller planet's orbit is very close to the EH, whereas the spaceship is far enough that the gravity does not affect it that much.
@@wellesmorgado4797But then climbing out of that gravity well would take many thousands or millions of times more energy than just returning to orbit
@@thesenate1844 That´s Nolan´s touch! 😂😂
Spot on! I think it's a great movie, because the drama is quite entertaining. But then people had to make it like it's a realistic movie, saying stuff like "fun fact, Interstellar is so scientifically accurate, that they hire a real physicist to make the black hole" or something like that. Lol
@@nurphurecarnium I enjoyed the movie, and part of what I enjoyed were the unrealistic but fascinating planets. Obviously in real life the interesting planets wouldn't be appropriate for a landing and those that would be mostly would be rocky and icy planets. Nolan also took a lot of liberty showing the story he wanted to show, particularly with time dilation, even if he did put some effort into grounding his scifi into something realistic.
But damn were people insufferable when it came out. Fans were suddenly some physicists telling everyone that it's 100% accurate and you "didn't understand the movie" if you disagreed.
My main issue with this entire film is that all the candidate planets require some amount of terraforming and if that's possible then why not do the same on Earth so there's never a reason to have to leave in the first place? They even have a fully functional space habitat yet still fall back down a gravity well for unknown reasons... It's been a while since I saw the film so I might be missing some other issue that'd require them to abandon earth.
I understood that the blight was turning earth uninhabitable inside a generation. So they were in a hurry.
@@Wfalen Okay, so why weren't greenhouses an option? If they could get contaminated, then couldn't that blight spread to other worlds aboard a space ship too?
Also still doesn't invalidate the issue with space habitats being a solution that's just conveniently ignored.
Hell they could have escaped into space aboard space habitats, nuked earth into a molten wasteland, waited a few centuries, and resettled it. Still would have been easier to do that than to go to another star system and terraform distant worlds.
@@beskamir5977 yeah, when you start to think about it, this movie turns into one huge black... I mean plothole :P
@@beskamir5977 i dont think we need do bombard it, but research a cure for the blight, or just let nature handle that, i am sure some bacteria would eventually develop resistance
@@pugofwarbr Agreed, developing a cure for that would be more reasonable than evacuating to another planet. Especially since another planet could easily have a similar blight that'd need to be terraformed out of existence. Just cause it's earth like, habitable, and has primitive plants and animals doesn't mean that humans can just show up and start breathing, drinking, and eating the local air, water, plants and animals. Actually, preexisting life only makes earth life even less likely to be able to exist there comfortably.
It's possible that Edmund's Planet is more Earthlike than it seems at first. After all - we only see a TINY area of it around the Campsite/Colony in that Desert area. But - as we should know by now - Earthlike planets don't only have one type of biome. We have deserts on Earth as well. But we also have forests, jungles and oceans. It's possible that Doctor Brand decided to start that colony in the desert area for consistency and safety. She can always use the lander to fly to other areas to explore. If there are any dangerous lifeforms in those other areas, they may be confined to those areas. If there are LARGE lifeforms like Dinosaurs, then they probably won't cross the desert to threaten the camp.
Let's hope there are no Arrakis style sandworms in that Desert!
If your definition of earthlike includes flora and fauna then we have never seen one, ever.
Earthlike usually just describes similar size, atmosphere, or terraforming potential
@@BoofPack69 Not exactly what I meant. But I suppose my language wasn't exact enough. When I said "dinosaur" or "sandworm" I meant something roughly the SIZE of those examples - with no other qualifier or description. Could be anything at all.
There movie doesnt give any indication of life on those planets.
They are all deserts.
I love this movie but nothing about the blanet made a lick of sense and starkly contradicts every prediction ever made about the subject. That said, it was pretty awesome anyway.
I agree. The movie was just DONE really well... loved it!
That’s because it’s a science fiction film. Did you not understand that part? Fiction?
@@mavis1108 science fiction has many times predicted reality. Science fiction can also be set in reality, just because a fictional crime thriller is fiction doesn't mean it can't be realistic. Don't be a needless smartass.
Gargantua is a gravity (and time) controlling computer.
It's essentially a god. The planets are part of its mysterious ways.
Bruh. ‘Contradicts every prediction’ is such a stupid thing to say. Many predictions contradict eachother. We barely even have actual imagery of a black hole as it is and we think we can definitely claim things about blanets?
Hell, an entire concept presented in this video about blanets being unable to form around black holes can be remedied by something as simple as rogue planets; another prediction.
To this day i still dont understand why they even tried to land there. Even if it were the "perfect" planet, they knew about the time dilation and just that alone should have excluded the planet!
The only thing I remember back then, is that you could not question the plot of this movie without being bombarded with comments from fanboys, demanding high praises. There are so many questionable decisions by the crew, but "love" was the nail in the coffin for me.
@@gdc4736 I liked the film despite of it's flaws, but this love thing moved it down from great to good for me
The movie is WAY too long for a plot that you can summarize in three sentences.
Film can be and is much more than plot
One big thing they do not deal in Interstellar is how the hell those super powerful engines work. Seems they work on magic or something.
Many studies have actually shown that planets with atmospheres and oceans would be able to redistribute heat pretty well. Ocean worlds in particular would be extremely good at heat redistribution, so depending on the temperature of the planet both the day and night sides would remain completely ice free. Also many models show the day side of tidally locked worlds may be extremely cloudy.
So that'll make it hotter (cuz of greenhouse effect) or colder (cuz of lack of light)?
@@alleythetoaster8401 it would likely balance out, the temperature gradients at the edges would push instability and disrupt the clouds if it couldn't redistribute the heat well.
@@alleythetoaster8401 depends on climate but itd probably decrease temp differences on both side of the planet
About as well as heat gets redistributed from our equator to our poles, right?
@@alleythetoaster8401 Greenhouse effect would distribute the sunlight beyond where there is direct exposure.
Thus further aiding in temperature distribution.
There are four things that is living rent free on my mind which I visit from time to time from this movie.
1.) "No parent should have to watch their own child die" , and this exchange.
2.)Cooper : CASE , get ready to match our spin with the retro thrusters.
CASE : It's not possible.
Cooper : No, It's necessary.
3.) Cooper : "We agreed Dr. Brand, 90%:
4.) Cooper : "Once you're a Parent, your the ghost of your children's future."
It might not be the most accurate movie, but it's one of the good ones.
Also it's under Sci-Fi for a reason.
P.S. I'm glad I'm not the only one sceptical about the Gargantuan System. This vid is now going to my permanent Astrum Playlist, Great vid as always!
Can't stand dorks that use the "rent free" internet trope" in their comments
@@jarlwhiterun7478 so "rent free" lives in ur head rent free?
I watched Interstellar in the cinema with my brothers, and we all burst out with laughter at #2... in the moment, it seemed such an incredibly corny line. Awesome movie otherwise.
@@jarlwhiterun7478 Drop all the insults you want. Only dorks uses "dorks" since they didn't know the actual word for it's meaning. A big helping of Irony if you ask me.
@@kaasmeester5903 You are not wrong though, It is a corny line.specially if you've been bought by the "Cooper's not a Trained NASA Pilot / Astronaut anymore, he is a Father" that movie was selling trough the first half of the movie.
13:12 WHA--? The captions just glitched at this point, showing a possibly scrapped part of the script. It's just two seconds long, but I need to point it out to look if I'm not wrong and everyone noticed it.
The original script that Jonathan Nolan made years before the movie was pretty different. It's easily found by just googling it.
"Some Interstellar fans compare Edmunds to an ancient Mars, back when it had oceans"
*My name is Walter Hartwell White, I live at 308 Negra Arroyo Lane*
why is nobody else talking about this lol
I knew I wasn't the only one who noticed
It's time dilated
Coop and Brand just chillin havin a heart to heart while Doyle is right there rescuable and likely not dead just K.O'd lol.
I was trying to remember if they had vital sign readouts and knew he was dead? Otherwise, yeah, he’s just chillin waiting to catch his next wave!
@@TheDarkHour684 because of the strength of the wave there's no chance anyone would have survived that. But Doyle just stood there and let Brand in before him for some reason. Those few seconds of delay sealed his fate.
Doyle was floating face down in the water after the wave. I think it's likely that the forces accelerating him upwards would've smashed him to pieces against his spacesuit and probably smashed the visor with his head. I doubt he would be surviving that.
I actually did a whole essay on this movie for a film studies class in college. Nolan did his best to employ real scientists and astronomers to make the movie as realistic as he could. If you have the deluxe DVD, it comes with a whole documentary about this work with experts and animators in creating the movie
in my case, i got those documentaries separately + the book explaining math
It seems they only focused on 2 things.
1. what a black hole with an accretion disc would look like.
2. time dilation.
The rest was movie fantasy...and half the time dilation accretion disc stuff was still movie fantasy.
The movie is 95% plot fantasy, 5% grounded in reality and common sense.
Kinda wished this was more in-depth. Coop outright pulls a conclusion outta nowhere when he says the tesseract was put there by *future humans of the 5th dimension* . Bruh, what?
Oh yeah, and the solution to everything was love.
Considering the wormhole’s entrance was in our solar system and it took Coop directly to a black hole which housed the tesseract which then allowed him to exit BACK INTO OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, it should be pretty easy to accept. Besides that it’s only logical that it was future humans. Coop never actually entered the black hole as nothing can escape it. He entered the tesseract that was placed there by the future humans. Once he experienced that, he understood that humans had to have ascended to the 5th dimension. Especially after visually experiencing the 4th dimension condensed to a 3rd dimensional view. That was a very deliberate construct; one only an intelligent species could pull off.
As for love being the solution, you need to think a little deeper than that my man. It’s not the emotion of love. It’s the cause and effect of love. Coops love for his daughter and family allowed him to be willing to sacrifice himself to get the data on the black hole’s singularity (which was the whole point of the endeavor; to gather completely new data to study and hopefully solve some equations that would allow humans to better control gravity.) Coops was willing to do so because he wanted his family to survive. He also happened to be one of the smartest people to be able to pull something like that off.
The whole idea of the movie is that humans need to work together. That we’re slowly destroying ourselves and our planet due to selfishness and greed. But caring for eachother and having those that are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good is what ultimately fuels our longevity. That if we keep having pockets of communities of people that don’t want to further anything but themselves, we’ll end up exactly like that dusty Earth. Coop wasn’t even willing to entertain the idea of the mission until the idea of his family came into play. He went through a transformative arc where he was PART of the problem but BECAME the solution.
Anyway if the concept of 5th dimensional humans from the future confuses you, consider this; it’s a Bootstrap Paradox. Meaning for the 5th dimensional humans to even exist in the first place they would have had to overcome the dying planet issue. However how did they manage to do that without the information Coop learns? Because Coop can’t learn that information without being guided by the future humans. But the future humans can’t exist without Coop doing what he did.
@@TheSCPStudio he definitely went into the black hole which had the tesseract. Without that he wouldn't be able to go in the tesseract. I mean if he could just easily go in the tesseract then why did the future humans not put it just outside Earth or Saturn? Also he definitely had to go inside so Tars can fetch the black hole data that Murph required.
Ikr? Where did he even get that idea? For all we know, they could've been future aliens from the 7th dimension.
love is always the answer
**Insert 80s power cords and synth drums** That's the power of love! **Also there's a saxophone**
Thank you Seattle, I'll be here all week!
My biggest problem with the movie was the entire premise of the crisis. They explicitly said atmospheric nitrogen was feeding the blight, so just remove that from the equation. Not much nitrogen underwater, but there are plenty of plants and animals we can farm, not to mention other ways to grow without ordinary atmosphere.
I think they are a bit wishy washy with the difference between extinction and total societal collapse. An end of terrestrial agriculture would be an end of the world as we know it, but the human race would survive.
just eat bugs ffs
if you can terraform mars, an inhospitable planet, could you not more easily re-transform earth back to being hospitable, with much less risk and effort?
That is also the first thing that comes to my mind whenever there is discussion about terraforming Mars,
Even if humanity really manages to mess up Earth, I think it is less likely that we would succeed in getting rid of all liquid water and atmosphere, contamination of all soil with perchlorate, and expose ourselves to lethal cosmic radiation due to no atmosphere. Then add much lower gravity that human bodies are not built for, and no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere.
The only circumstances I can think terraforming mars could be a good idea for backup is if there is a giant asteroid much larger than the ones that killed the dinosaurs that essentially would cover earth surface in lava, and so worse than mars. Having said that, at a technological level terraforming another planet, it makes sense that we would also have the technology to deflect such an asteroid in time.
If gargantua is really a SUPERmassive black hole, then there is no possibility of any sort of "blanet" orbiting it. Blanets have to do with stellar-mass black holes. Also, its overwhelmingly likely that any black hole with an active accretion disk would render the habitable zone of the system far outside of the black hole's gravitational domain. Water would never exist in such systems.
Also, in the accretion disc matter is beeing streched down to the atoms cause of tidal forces, even far away from it tidal forces wouldnt allow for anything to form and would "spagettify" it immediatelly.
There would be quiet spots in the accretion disk in a supermassive black hole.
@@ltschumacherYou have to get very close to a supermassive black hole to be spaghettified.
@@ltschumacher oh yeah we get incinerated immediately as soon as we get near a fire... yeah that's how it works.
There's no gradual change of force, its immediate change, like a bubble of force field, as soon as you go inside that field, spaghetti baby!
the tides on Miller's planet simply don't make sense, regardless of Kip Thorne's "equations". tides are not waves in the common sense of that word, and he knows this. tides are a kind of pressure wave from the forces across the entire ocean added together (which is why tides don't cause your cup to overflow or your hair to stand up), while typical waves are caused by the steepening of an incoming pressure wave over a shallowing depth. Miller's planet has the same depth everywhere, so no waves are possible. the tides can push the local depth deeper and shallower, but this would be on a truly global scale, and not a vertical "wave" as seen in the movie. it's just to look cool, but is worse than "unlikely", it's literally impossible.
Tide is caused by gravitational pull, expecting a black holes gravity and a moons gravity to have the a similar effect on an ocean is insane
According to The Science of Interstellar by Kip Thorne, Miller's planet is shaped a little like a football, with one end constantly pointing at Gargantua. The waves are literally tidal waves, so it's not the waves coming toward you, it's the planet rotating under you and the fixed waves slamming into you
Water would absolutely get effected by a black hole, immense effected
Plenty of brilliant minds have theorized such effects could be possible, but those are just theories, science is mostly an educated guess. But I'm gonna trust the educated guesses of some of the most brilliant minds to ever exist before I believe some random people on TH-cam comments
How do you know depth is the same everywhere on miller’s planet?
@@Repeatedlyreminded it's mentioned in the movie (and accompanying discussions by Kip Thorne) that the planet is completely covered by a shallow ocean.
So within the fictional world of this movie, I bet discovering a previously thought to be physically impossible phenomenon like those impossible waves would force physicists to rewrite so many laws of physics
I'm wondering - living on a planet with large time dilation, does it mean that when looking out into the cosmos, does one see the universe evolve at a greatly increased rate?
I wouldn’t think so, as a black hole doesn’t pull light faster than itself, so light should still reach you at the same rate as anywhere else. But who knows, 100’s of different theories on this.
exactly... imagine the ending of the movie... when Amelia Brand find out Cooper racing to her planet, through a telescope, she would witness a super fast rocket blazing through her sky, fastest thing she could observe among the stars... total observation from 1 day to night... while Cooper spend literally decades to actually get to her planet
@@oJustin96you are fucking clueless 😂
Yes, the outside universe would appear faster, but it's already so slow that you wouldn't notice much difference in a human lifetime. The outside universe would also appear bluer and possibly brighter. Just as light escaping the hole is redshifted the light entering is blue shifted. Depending on how deep you are this might move some common frequencies into the visual spectrum. Red dwarf stars might become visible.
@@ericsmith6394 At that level of time dilation it would be a LOT brighter. They said 1 hour = 7 years. That's 61320 hours. So they'd probably be fried just by starlight alone, not even considering the radiation from the accretion disk..
I love blanets
I love You.
@@Mike-xq7ibwhat about me ,🙄
I'd like a movie where it is super hard science fiction about trying to colonize a planet.
Not a movie (yet), but try the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Very fascinating and elaborate and while not always an entertaining read (they can be quite technical), he certainly put a lot of thought into those books.
I'd love to see a movie series about a terraformed Mars and an interplanetary war.
@@ShadowDragon-cw7wb I assume you have watched The Expanse?
@@WrenPhoenix :D
For All Mankind is closest i saw, its tv show
I assume the next movie you will break down is The Martian, right? _...right?_
Would be hella dope!
That was at least closer in accuracy. But even that one had lots of things wrong with it when you really analyze it. Worst of course was trying to propel his spacesuit by releasing gas from it.
Blanets truly a new kind of celestial body
black hole planets, i doubt we will have a telescope powerful enough to see one for a long time
Truly one of the celestial bodies of all time
How would you know the wormhole came out 10 billion years from Earth? None of the stars or galaxies would look the same shape or age even if you could see them.
First planet we ever discovered was around a pulsar, so maybe 2:50 it had at least two as well but don’t know when we saw second one.
Do you mean first planet outside of the solar system? I don't wanna seem like an asshole trying to correct you I just don't know what you mean by "first planet"
I do wonder what it would be like to live on a "blanet." Imagine how much actual knowledge of black holes we would have if Earth was within throwing distance of one, and our "solar" system would potentially be the whole galaxy.
While it would be extremely metal to have a "sun" that is actually a black holes accretion disk, in reality the intense x ray raduation would utterly destroy any life on a planet and strip away the atmosphere.
@@thesenate1844 it might be plausible to orbit a star that slowly orbits a blackhole relatively far from the accretion disk.
@@thesenate1844 Not necessarily, depends on distance
I pretty sure you would be dead.
@@thesenate1844what are you even saying this for lol. It adds nothing. Do you think the commenter just means to pluck Earth out of Sol’s orbit and place it in a black holes orbit? Ofc it would kill everyone. But if life evolved in a planet around a black hole, surely it would have adapted to the radiation? Radiation isn’t inherently bad for life lol. OUR lives, sure. But cancer cells thrive off of radiation and they’re living organisms. The universe and life makes no sense despite how much we try to understand it. Do some deep delves into scientific topics and you’ll start to understand just how little we actually know.
It’s crazy to me that neither the video, nor anyone in the comments have pointed this out; but black hole accretion disks can be up to 10 Million° Celsius!
This is due to the ridiculous amount of friction, which is due to the ridiculous rotational speed of the disk. And you’re telling me that ICE (of any element) managed to clump together to form planets? 🤨
Any solid objects in an accretion disk would immediately get vaporised by the heat. Have I missed something?
Living on a time dilated planet would be all kinds of messed up. The timespan of the rest of the universe would pass you by, any space exploration would be vastly inhibited since even moving locally within the hole-ar system is enough to radically change the time dilation.
Funny thing is that only a couple of days ago we had professor Kip Thorne giving us a lecture (at our department, in PUC-Rio) about the physics of Interestellar, the movie. He explained to us, in a very fun way, how the movie's ideas came out, as well as some of the technical liberties about the physics that the producers took. In fact, I found it amazing how even the most implausible parts were, at least a little bit, based on real world physics. It was a nice hour and half!
Something I've always wondered about "scientifically accurate" depictions of black holes is whether or not they would really look like their depictions to our naked eyes. Since the accretion disk is emitting lots of light, wouldn't the black hole just look like a giant point source of light to our naked eyes, the way our sun does?
Nah, the event horizon would still be pitch black. Light cannot escape and therefore it is by default, pure void black to look at. No reflection, no glow, nothing. Just literal lack of light.
@@BoofPack69 The light is coming from the accretion disk, not the hole itself. The "rings" over the top and from the bottom is just light from the accretion disk on the back side of the hole, bent over enough to come at us, but not enough to get sucked into the black hole. And the light from the accretion disk in front of the hole never got bent (much) at all. Black holes themselves are black, but they are surrounded by a shell of light that didn't quite fall into the hole.
@@Bramble451 I am aware, but their question seemed to be regarding whether you would still see the black void or not
The Interestellar team responsible for depicting the graphics of the BH did an image experiment that was quite nice. They visualized the Gargantua BH as viwed far away from its north pole direction, hence no lensing effects. Then they turned down contrast, to simulate haw a telescope looking it from far away would see. And they got an image that looked exactly like M87!!
6:00 Couldn't the blanets just be rouge planets that happened to be captured and miraculously stabilized in their orbit around Gargantua?
If Gargantua was in the habit of collecting lots of rogue planets, we'd only see the ones that managed to not crash into anything and stabilize their orbits
It could indeed be remnants of the supernova that formed Gargantua, or rogue planets that were later captured and stabilized in orbit. Recent observations suggest that planets around black holes may be more common than previously thought. Black holes, much like stars, exert a strong gravitational influence that can capture nearby objects, although their gravity is concentrated in a smaller space. For example, if Gargantua formed from a star that had planets orbiting it, some of those planets might have survived the supernova or been scattered into new stable orbits over time. Additionally, a black hole's accretion disk could potentially provide material for planet formation under the right conditions, though much of the matter would likely end up falling into the black hole.
The fact that supermassive black holes anchor entire galaxies demonstrates that objects can indeed maintain stable orbits around black holes at sufficiently large distances. For something as massive as Gargantua, it wouldn't be surprising if planets existed in stable orbits far enough from the intense gravitational effects near the event horizon.
If the blackhole is 10 billion light years away from Earth, why is this movie called Interstellar, when it should be called Intergalactic?
You're 100% right!
interstellar. adjective. in·ter·stel·lar ˌint-ər-ˈstel-ər. : located or taking place among the stars. (in the galaxy or the universe)
Becasue "Intergalactic" is already taken by the Beastie Boys :D
@@Krzysztof_z_Bagien 🤣
They never even go to another star either.
Ahh yes! I just rewatched this movie a few days ago
OMG I WAS SO EXCITED FOR THIS! I watched interstellar for the first time a week ago and saw your video on gargantua (under which i left my long rant about the movie lol), in which you mentioned you would make one about the planets. And I couldnt find it. Im so glad it’s out - and perfect timing too.
You tell me this 10 years after release movie? All my dreams are gone, I feel more helpless than Matt Damon in Interstellar, The Martian and Band of Brothers combined.
Don’t worry, most of what this guy is saying is just speculation anyway. We barely have tangible data on black holes as it is.
They mention in interstellar I think, that miller is being pulled into Gargantua (relatively) slowly, gaining speed as it's pulled in further.
Millers planet was top 3????? 😂who was evaluating planets? The Deep?
I have a theory on Miller's planet. What if it was a rogue planet, wandering through the universe at high speeds, and, it just so happend that it got caught in Gargantua's gravitational field. Having just the right speed to not be pulled in, or escape the gravitational field, is something very unlikely for a rogue planet, but, not impossible. It could have been an ice world, and once it started orbiting around Gargantua, the ice melted. Now, this is all very unlikely, but we have to realize that, Miller's planet is about 10 bilion light years away from earth, showing just how the small the chances of this planet existing are.
Great video, but thats like saying: "sorry lord of the rings fans, middle earth is pure fantasy"
A lot of the marketing focused on how much real science went into making the movie and how they had a notable physicist as an executive producer. I think it's fair to look at how realistic the planets are.
Alex, huge fan been watching for years and have seen all your videos starting from a realistic representation of the solar system. Last time I commented it was asking for a new video on venus and i like to think my comment wasnt overlooked because you delivered as you always do. Im always excited when i get a notification that you or Astrum Extra posted a new video. Anyways i was wondering if youve seen the netflix show “3 Body Problem” it incorporates aliens, quantum physics, and has a great story to it based on the Wow signal. I wanted to know if you thought maybe “3 Body Problem” was more realistic than alien, avatar, interstellar, or any other movies youve covered. Thanks!
Miller may be just a wandering planet when it is completely formed somewhere else and escaped. Then it accidentally captured by the gravity of the supermassive black hole and start to surround it in a stable orbit, Instead of form in the accretion disk. Everything may just be a super rare coincidence.😅😅😅
I like how this movie had renowned and very accomplished scientists advising on it yet random youtubers and commentators know more/better.
Thank you. Finally someone sensible. It always annoys me when people celebrate this movie as something rooted in science. When in fact, it's just a bunch of nonsense. So many logical flaws in it - from the immense radiation that would turn the planet so near a black hole into a plasma cloud, up to the orbital-mechanics-breaking departure from the black hole...
And thats why you arent a film maker lol. It's a Hollywood movie, nobody actually thinks it's 100% real but some do enjoy expressing the thought and wonder of the human mind when engaging in cool sci-fi stuff. I'd recommend watching some of the bonus content that explains some of the science that _inspired_ the movie, but Im sure even that won't make you any fun at parties.
@@nemui_tora ohh cry baby 🍼🍼
The OP is slandering people who say it is rooted in science.
He isn't against your daddy Nolan or fans who love the movie without caring about science 😊.
Why would one even consider colonizing an exoplanet revolving around a black hole?
having coherent ideas isn't something Nolan does
highest likelihood of celestial events like attracting comets and asteroids that can introduce water and foreign compounds
because there was a wormhole near saturn that appeared and they dont have enough time to get anywhere else.
Is the whole point of the movie not humans in the future helping humans in the past learn how to control and harness gravity aka black holes?
Because it looks cool.
I also think that the speed of light can't possibly be a constant. It's proven that gravity affects light. Sometimes bending it, sometimes not even letting it escape from black holes. They also say it takes the average photon 10,000 years just to get out of the Sun. So, wouldn't a laser pointed towards a black hole go a lot faster than one pointed away from inside its orbit? It makes less sense to say it's a constant the more I think of it. Say your looking at an eclipse and the light from the sun that's near the moon that's bending around it. If they all had speedometers the photons zipping around the Moon would be going faster towards the Moon then slower after passing it . The photons hitting your eye, if it were possible to track, would have lots of different ages from the moment they left Sol. Some would be 8 minutes old, some might be 7 minutes, and 59.9995 seconds old, some might be 8 minutes, and.000005 seconds old and so on.
It means that depending on the gravity wells it interacts with at the moment it's measured, the velocity of every photon in the universe COULD have different speeds. And different rates of acceleration and deceleration.
Am I going too fast? Lol 😂😆😅
you must have nice drugs 😸
Speed of light is constant. But there is space-time dilation, ie. it's the warping of lengths and durations which accomodate for the constancy of the speed of light. The major realization from the theory of relativity is that we don't actually live in an Euclidean space. The actual coordinate system is warped by gravity.
The photon thing out of the Sun is not about a single photon. There is no straght line of sight that a photon could fly from the center to the edge. It will hit an electron of one of the nearby atoms and be absorbed via photo-electric effect, possibly knocking the electron into a higher orbital or even out of the atom. Then shortly afterwards it may be emmited again in some random direction. What they mean is this whole chain of events from the first photon in the center to the last one at the edge of the star which will then fly off... But it is important to note that a photon itself always flies at the speed of light.
putting aside the misunderstanding of gravity's effects on spacetime, we can easily prove/disprove your hypothesis (I guess it loosely qualifies as one). We can launch a spacecraft to move to a location far from earth on the other side of the sun and send a signal that passes close enough to be supposedly slowed down. At long enough distances, the discrepancy in signal arrival time should be easily resolved.
5:38 "not possible for Miller's planet to exist outside accretion disk" "This presents a problem, as in the film, we see the planet orbiting well beyond". Why cant the planet have formed in the accretion disk when the disk was larger, just like a star system. Over a long time the accretion disk becomes more stable as long as its not dragging in more material.
Update: actually after rewatching maybe it was talking about the planet had to be in the plane of the disk which is not in some scenes
It's hard to believe interstellar came out 10 years ago 😬
Doesn't feel like it
Its a completely engineered blackhole system. Someone had to have manually created it. Since the movie already has a temporal paradox some future civilization could have engineered it to violate physics as we understamd it in order to create the specific events required for him to go inside and transmit the information back in another paradoxical way.
The space ship looks like a clock
12 modules, 12 hours.
The biggest problem with it is the little ship they use to planet hop--it would need tons of fuel to take off from each. It makes no sense.
Yea especially Miller's planet which they say it has 130% Earth's gravity, making it much harder to get into the orbit.
10 years already?
Where is all the time going? What have we actually achieved in that time?
I learned to draw and talk very fast in that.
(Wisely) They haven't tried a sequel.
Hi. Alex. I'm crazy about your channel. The quality of your work on every level is astounding.
Interstellar is my favorite movie of all time. I watch it every year, have seen dozens of deep dive TH-cam videos, yet I see something new every time. Such a rich, thought provoking movie.
you sound like your pfp looks
Yeah the frozen clouds were really a fascinating touch of creativity. It prompted me to search if it is possible or not.
I just don't understand how you wouldn't see a fast-moving, massive, mountain-wave across the planet before you go in. They were in orbit. Like... LOOK for 2 seconds?
the planet is small and round, You cant see very far
Because time dilation.
I would argue the blanets and star formed during one of Gargantua's feeding frenzies eons ago. Perhaps the accretion disk during this feeding period was much larger and extended out to where the blanets were during the events of the movie. But there seems to be a G Type star in the system as well. So maybe Gargantua captured and consumed many of the planets belonging to the captured star with the 3 blanets surviving the cataclysm.
I can't stand Interstellar. I think what bothers me the most about it is that the movie made a huge deal about working with Kip Thorne to ensure scientific accuracy and purporting to be a "realistic" space movie, but then it throws a lot of that science out the window when it conflicts with the story or doesnt provide enough spectacle. The stellar navigation is especially bad, similar to Gravity with how they just magically ignore orbital mechanics and have infinite fuel for moving in the extremely steep gravity gradients around the black hole. The core plot itself is also a big headscratcher and doesnt make any logical sense. Then theres the ending thats just weird and magically works everything out.
In a nutshell, this is full on space fantasy drama masquerading as hard sci-fi that teaches people who dont know about space absolutely wrong ideas about how things work and pushes a lot of pseudoscience as facts.
Well don't you just love it when a "dying" Earth, which still has oceans, habitable land, plants, forests, and all that good stuff is depicted as unliveable compared to a barren, seemingly dead rock? The most ridiculous concept in all these movies - and with a certain demographic today - is the idea that "colonizing" a dead rock millions of kilometres (or here: billions of lightyears) away is the easier option to solve environmental problems and provide a "plan B" for human civilisation... Too many people to this day confuse space travel and other planets with some kind of sci-fi Oregon Trail, without realizing that the odds of finding a planet that has Earth's gravity (+/- 15%), a breathable atmosphere, a good temperature range, the right amount and -kind of solar radiation, and a compatible soil, and inert or non-threatening biosphere are next to none. Let alone the challenge of getting there and building something, because "living off the land" would be virtually impossible without Warhammer 40k STC-like technology.
Nolan never said that Interstellar was factual.
Nolan wanted to do a Kubrick. Interstellar was supposed to be this generation's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
okay nerd, its still an amazing movie 🤓
@@isk8atparksthat's all it is for casuals who can't read a book 😂
Anyone with a little interest in space would call it bull$hit
Seems like saving the earth would be considerably easier than trying to find a new planet!
This movie was pretty good till the power of love broke physics.
Yea for real that part was lame
Unfortunately, I too tuned out at that point.
The power of love is the most underestimated and misunderstood physics power.
Just like faith in God.
That’s why it’s called sci-fi and not a documentary, isn’t it?
wait which part do you mean i don't get it
Further reading on the environs of Gargantua:
_Kip Thorne -The Science of Interstellar_ (2014)
Whaaaaaat?!?!? You're telling me the science fiction film Interstellar is science fiction?
I dont know if I believe you.
Miller's planet being outside of the accretion disk isn't an issue if you consider that may not be its original orbit. It could have formed in the accretion disk and then been pushed out after colliding with another planetary body. We certainly have evidence of our own solar system's planets changing orbits after large collisions early in their history. Or it could also be a rouge planet that got captured by Gargantua's gravity and eventually settled into a stable orbit.
I don’t think my work is going to let me pause and leave to watch Interstellar first. I actually need to get back to work…
Bruh come on
Live a little, your time is gone quickly and you carnt take it with you.
Come on....
Don't take life too seriouse;•)
It's not meant to last forever.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
I'm still wandering how the astronauts in the film reach objects of lightyears away by means of a conventional powered spaceship. But the descriptions of the different objects are speaking.
Did you not watch the movie?
A wormhole opens near Saturn. Coop goes into hyper sleep for 2 years to reach that. They slingshot around Mars to reach Saturn. The wormhole takes them to the black hole. Coop attempts to enter the black hole but arrived in a tesseract created by 5th dimensional humans. The tesseract is designed to exit Coop back into our solar system where he was picked up by humans.
I've always hated this movie, it advertised itself as one that was scientifically made, and I just grabbed my head in disbelief how something like this could have passed. One thing that those planets didn't make any sense, but to even trying to land on a planet near a black hole knowing about time dilation? That idea just blows my head
Womp womp
This movie is a lot like the TV show The Big Bang Theory in that it made a bunch of dumb people feel smart and if you dared try to criticize it you were instantly labeled as too dumb to understand the science
@@JoshuaC0rbit So true, that is great comparison I remember watching Big Bang Theory with one of my sister(we are both science students, she is a math and physics teacher and I am a geophysicist), and we watched it to laugh at pseudoscience. As a scientist you can't watch TV these days, you see all this nonsense and you can't get into the show. The only show I've been able to watch lately is The Expanse, thanks to them not violating the laws of physics so much.
Well I mean, when you compare it to other Hollywood stuff, it is easily at least more scientifically accurate.
It's just that the competition isn't that good.
I thought the whole movie was based on Kip Thorn's ideas. I should think they got him to consult. I also thought that EVERY object with significant gravity had a sweet spot for orbit. Like it's an obvious fact that's understood.
7:49 maybe it has so strong currents that distribute the temperature.
Could a blanet not theoretically get thrown partially out of orbit by another blanet so that it is outside the accretion disk? Or would this cause it to lose too much momentum?
Here's a spoiler for you... it's the dumbest movie ever.
I dunno I never take sci movies seriously enough to believe anything in them I just take it as entertainment. Yet I was surprised about the portrayal of the black hole being scientifically accurate like the way it looked.
That's not what a football looks like. That's what a Rugby ball looks like. Stop pandering.
A Rugby ball is a football.
@8:23 UH OH!!! Sounds like a three body problem! LMAO
We live on blanet earth.
Edit: wait, that’s not a typo in the title, I was makeing fun of the mistake.
I love this movie. It might not be 100% scientifically correct, nor should it be.
It's exciting and inviting, great movie!
The thing that hit me about the film: SPOILER ALERT:
They were able to do so much, but still, old age and death was staring them in the face after all.
It wasn't a documentary, gang. It was a movie. Looking for scientific accuracy in a movie where Matthew McConaughey communicates with his daughter by knocking books off a shelf in the future in the past is probably not the best use of anyone's time. Better to spend that time just enjoying a really great movie.
I haven't read the book, but I strongly suspect that Dr Thorne meant that Miller has to orbit in the same plane as the accretion disk, not that it had to orbit within it.
If it was created from it then it'd be kind of odd if it orbitted outside..
A fascinating, extremely well-reasoned and researched video. :)
One point (and I'm sure others have brought it up in the comments section): from what I've read, a global ocean actually could remain liquid on a tidally-locked planet, as the ocean would even out the temperatures between the hot side facing the sun and the cold side facing away.
🅱️lanets
Though it would not be able to support a large colony, I think it would be cool to inhabit a research colony on the surface (or in the clouds of) Mann's planet, which is being supplied by the colony on Edmund's planet. It would be really cool to find huge, suspended cliffs and giant chasms within the complex cloud layers on Mann's planet to see what caused them as well as figure out the source of the ammonia within the atmosphere.
Interstellar is among my top 4 movies of all time it was out of this world experience when I watched it for the first time.
Sad.
Great video! One thing though... I thought the end of the film showed Dr Brand by herself on Edmund's planet. The only structure there was Edmund's shelter. Now, it has been some time since I've watched Interstellar so perhaps I'm mistaken.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the roche limit for the first planet. Planets can't even exist gravitationaly this close to a black hole, no planet has enough gravity to resist not being dismantled by the blackhole.
Well, with all the dire conditions as shown in the film, Earth still appears to be much better suited for life than those planets, to be honest.
Naaaaaah.... THIS close to an active supermassive black holes accretion disk... Extreme radiation would melt anything organic in an enormous radius. Completely impossible.
i assume the density of the particles in the accretion disk is still so large, that we could fit entire plants in between the individual particles. the volume of the spacial grid is exponentially large than we could comprehend. Obviously the radiation would vapourise any mater, but it will be the function of the distance to the event horizon which gives the density of accretion disk itself. following this idea, we can place a planet on the outskirts of the disk without worrying about harmful radiation.
@@deepak_nigwal
Problem with that is that planets arent simply placed. They have to grow there, otherwise there is no way it would be "captured" by the black hole and sort of just find its way into a viable orbit.
An accretion disk is the most violent area in the universeI have a big problem picturing a stabile, rocky planet with an atmosphere, solid ground, and water that behaves weirdly, would be viable in that environment. That close to a supermassive black hole, it would move extremely fast, probably be an egg-shaped gas giant with all kinds of heavy elements as its literally made out of the final death throws of a star under extremely turbulent conditions, bombarded with unimaginable radiation.
Many brilliant minds have pondered, discussed, and made estimations and educated guesses. Now I'm not saying they're right, and neither are they, they're just making educated guesses, but imma believe them over some random people commenting on TH-cam
A lot of brilliant people say it's atleast possible with our current understanding of things
@@Luc_B63 Dude come on. There is a habitable zone around most bodies of radiation. Do you actually believe that the habitable zone of a supermassive black hole is in the accretion disk of the supermassibe black hole? The black hole glows like a star due to the accretion disk. It's like putting Earth on the Sun's surface. Thorne has only said that under such and such circumstances a planet could form in a black hole's accretion disk. But anybody who believes that planet would be habitable is an idiot and should have their scientific titles taken away.
I love the Miller's Planet scene! I saw it in IMAX and my fear of giant waves made it such an exciting watch 🌊
It should say "Sorry Interstellar Fans, that movie is drastically overrated."
Naw, it was actually pretty decent.
That movie was a masterpiece! If you like space exploration, that movie is a must see!
Next do a video on why they needed a Saturn V if they could jump around from planet to planet so easily once they got to the other side of the wormhole.
It feels like this channel has gone down hill a bit. Getting Neil Degrasse Tyson vibes.
But you do not talk much about Edmunds in this video, what makes that planet so special that a life-supporting environment is present there. How can Edmunds have that while being close to a black hole?