No really. From physic lessons we all know that black holes have infinite gravitation (or smth near) so even light cant escape it. Every matter will be destroyed. And now we have spaceship flying in to the heart of a black hole. Impossible. You might said, well in X years (100, 200, 99999) we might get this technology. Well, we might, but then, the ship wouldnt look like our conventional spacecrafts. The laws of physics just cant be ignored.
If you can't ignore the laws of phsyics the movie will suck. I can ignore the laws of physics for 135 minutes and enjoyed the movie.
shareTook the words straight outta my mouth :)
shareIf you can't ignore the laws of phsyics the movie will suck. I can ignore the laws of physics for 135 minutes and enjoyed the movie.
lol, i like that last one, that would some movie. 2 hours sitting in the machine with a constipated face trying to make it happen! haha
share
There's no proof that it went into a black hole. It just said "Entry point unknown" which could mean anything.
This movie is weird in that it jumps to conclusions without evidence or reason.
http://www.happierabroad.com - Discover Global Dating Solutions!
Wow I totally agree with you. Logical leaps and almost logical fallacies was the biggest problem I had with this movie, despite the horrendous directing and editing.
I mean Norman's team <i>assumes</i> that this is some time warp thing caused by the ship flying into a black hole, not even entertaining the idea that their assumption might be wrong, given that Norman's team's scientific knowledge is lagging by about fifty years until spacecraft technology is available. And the rest of the plot is based on that possibly erroneous assumption.
I mean, Samuel L. Jackson's character makes a "deduction" that they are all going to die, assuming, again, if they survive, they will surface and tell everyone about how the spacecraft crashed and the future generation will be aware of time travel thus the spaceship's log would indicate "flew into a black hole and time traveled" for whatever happened to it instead of recording "an unknown event". I can think at least four other reasons for the "unknown event":
A. They survived and told everyone their story but everyone thought they've gone mad and threw them all into the loony bin
B. They survived and told everyone but the records didn't survive
C. They survived and told everyone but the discovery was considered too silly and the government shut down the whole thing so the future people would not remember it
D. They survived and told everyone and future people know about black hole time travel but the ship flies into a wormhole instead (that is, what happens to the ship is something else entirely)
There are also a number of smaller logical leaps (like going from we might die from environmental causes inside a 300 year old ship to aliens want to kill us,non sequitur much? Also, why would the aliens, if there are any, still be even alive? They are here looking for alien life, they have a therapist but no MD,not even an anatomist, seriously?) For a large part of the movie I thought this was comedic satire or something. The ending dialogue between the survivors was outright hilarious. I mean, Norman jumps to the conclusion that because the survivors, being the "best" because they are supposedly brilliant, couldn't handle it the rest of the world would not be able to handle the power of manifestation. But they were clearly an emotionally volatile lot. A Phd in astrophysics doesn't' guarantee mental discipline.
Anyway, phew, my point is this movie was nonsensical for the most part.
Okay, two years and no volunteers, I'll be that guy this time. Here we go:
How is it that you know how many Star Trek episodes and movies there are, but you think Trek involves "jumping to light speed?"
The Cockroach Honor Award
2008: WALL-E
2009: G-Force
The cockroach is a noble beast
Agree with you on almost all of those points. However, it is actually a myth that you explode in the vacuum of space. (NASA concluded this after a few accidents where they left someone in the vacuum simulator.. They don't die, they just go unconscious after a few seconds due to lack of oxygen, and would die in about a minute.)
To: CaptainSexMachine
You don't die in a vacuum from a lack of oxygen, but from all of the liquids in your body vaporizing due to zero atmospheric pressure. In other words, your body literally boils away (without the need for heat being applied to effect it as req'd here on earth with its non-zero atmospheric pressure of 15psi).
That's why water boils faster at higher altitudes: less air pressure due to fewer actual air molecules pushing down (via gravity).
You're gonna need a bigger boat.
That's not true. It's a common misconception that you explode or boil away in a vacuum. It has actually happened to people in various accidents that have happened in NASA's tests.
The human body is not a balloon. You don't just explode.
The human body is not a container of water. Yes, 65-70% of it is water, but not all of it, and it's not on the surface to just boil off; it's protected under the skin.
Finally, even if you put a glass of water in a vacuum, it doesn't boil away immediately. Boiling takes times. Vaporization requires heat. Even if you reduce the air pressure to lower the boiling point, it is still an endothermic reaction that takes heat away from the source. So if you put a glass of water in a vacuum, it will boil for a while, and then freeze. This, incidentally, is how refrigerators work; they manipulate temperature by increasing and decreasing pressure in order to transition between gas/liquid.
So as a consequence, what actually happens when you are placed in a vacuum, is that the water in your mouth, eyes, and lungs rapidly boils off, but that's about it. Also, once the temperature approaches freezing, the rate of boiling is drastically reduced.
However, oxygen is a completely different problem. Normally when you hold your breath in a swimming pool, you still have oxygen in your lungs, so you'll last a few minutes. In a vacuum, you lose all the air in your lungs immediately, so you quickly lose consciousness.
The other risk factors include possible lung damage from trying to hold your breath, as well the "bends" (decompression sickness), which is when nitrogen dissolved in the blood forms bubbles which cause complications.
In the first hand account of a NASA employee who found himself in a vacuum, he quickly lost consciousness and last thing he remembered was his saliva boiling off his tongue. They took him out and he was ok.
I'm not an astrophysisist but I have read a few books on black holes, call it a hobby. Basically gravity as we experiance it in our common sense isn't real, I think it was Einstein who decided that based on the idea that we can cancel it out. If you were falling in an elevator at 9.8m/s2 and took something out of your pocket and dropped it it would appear to float. What gravity actually is is a bend in spacetime, the 4 dimensions of x,y,z and time. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine we might somehow get the ability to bend spacetime ourselves in such a way that we could cancel the effects of a black hole in a localized fashion. However if something passed the event horizon (the point at which light can no longer escape) of a black hole I find it hard to imagine it could come back out since that would require moving faster then light and nothing can go that fast. But did the ship in the story pass that point or just play around the edge of the event horizon? If the black hole was sufficiently massive the gravitational effects (tidal forces) around the event horizon would be negligable (the more massive the black hole the further the event horizon from it's core and the weaker the tidal forces at that point) and surviving it would be easy, our entire galaxy could be inside the event horizon of a black hole right now and we wouldn't even know it. It's as you get close to the core the problems arise, the difference in gravitational forces (tides) between your head and your feet (assuming you were oriented feet or head first towards the core) would stretch you and eventually pull you apart.
Not that any of this matters, it's just a movie. If you apply science to every movie most of them are unbelievable.
[deleted]
What makes it weirder is that dimension is an aspect of the initial conditions of our universe. The big bang was a misnomer, it didn't explode into space that was there, it created the dimensions for the space to occupy. All the energy of the universe at 0 million years was centered at a single point with no space, therefore having infinite density, therefore being a singularity (the same found in the center of a black hole).
However, it is possible to know if we're in a black hole or not. A black hole gains more mass, even if it has infinite density; Hawkins Radiation causes a black hole to lose (albeit a minute amount) of energy. Law of Conservation states that the universe has a finite amount of energy, which can be in the form of mass, and this amount cannot be created nor destroyed. Unless someone can prove that we're losing or gaining energy, I doubt we're in a black hole singularity.
However, back to the topic. If you cannot suspend your belief that a spaceship can pass into a black hole, then doesn't it bother you that there's a sphere that causes your thoughts to manifest into reality?
[deleted]
Funny part about physics and theories is that they change pretty rapidly, especially this topic since it's all untestable and completely theoretical. Trying to cram some theory down the throat of a guy who probably doesn't believe you sure sounds like a waste of time to me.
sharepsiico:
Nicely done. Newton's theories in short said he can set absolute values to measure others. Einstein's theory said almost everything is relative, except light - it's have no mass, therefore nothing can travel faster than light. But the Redshift Theory (gravity attracting light) and the idea that light can be sucked up by black holes set up the whole mess we have today in psychics, because it makes light something that cannot work as a absolute measure AND that the no-mass theory from Einsten is wrong. The same logic that sets up light as the fastest "thing" in the Universe because it have no mass, indicates that -probably- something with less mass than light could travel even faster...
Beware The Ladybeetle - Free game developers team - www.beware.co.nr
i actually thought something completely different. can u remember the part when goodman talks about how the astronauts eventually destroyed themselves because of the sphere? i think that it is posible there may not even have been a proper black hole (like the fake jellyfish), rather a part of one of the spaceship crew's imagination wherein they all fly back in time...
shareStephen hawking was talking about this issue once and deductive reasoning said you could get through the event horizon and into the black hole. You would fall through the black hole for about 2 weeks and then get crushed to death.
Its not a tunnel its a hole into a singularity.
Lets collectively murder Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Will Smith and Chris Farley.
I thought they explained it as the ship merely passed close enough to the black hole to slingshot around it and attain speeds that flung it back in time.
Fighting the forces of evil, that none of us can see without sunglasses
Maybe the crew was trying to get back home, and they over shot by 300 year?
shareI thought they explained it as the ship merely passed close enough to the black hole to slingshot around it and attain speeds that flung it back in time.
you sir are one smart mf.
shareHawking, at one point, did not believe in black holes.
The physics surrounding black holes is all theory. We can all have post-grad degrees in astro-physics but even then few of us would agree on details regarding this phenomona.
that is an awesome idea! major props
shareWell, somehow they have to travel back in time, if of course the spaceship was built in a different and earlier age than this - which couldnt happen, as it had been there for only 300 years. Anyways, I think you point out a VERY good thing here - that someone in the flight crew was afraid of ending up in a black hole. Why not? I would have been terrifyed of everything, if I were to travel around in space like that. What of course could have happened, is the fact that the Sphere itself commences the timetravel. This in order to appear at a time when we are ready for its powers.
EDIT - this was a comment to bluesteels answer. It just ended up further down.
That's one exellent point there. I must have watched that movie at least 10 time and have NEVER thought about that twist. Great angle there.
shareIf you're gonna ignore the laws of physics for the purposes of this movie, I've got a better reason for you:
Even assuming the ship could survive the black hole and get sent back in time, what's the probability that, out of all the places in the universe it could have ended up, it would happen to get sent back to the surface of the planet from which it originated?
Perhaps it had something to do with the sphere?
shareThe conclusion in the movie seems to be that the black hole was responsible for the ship traversing space and time to arrive where it did, rather than the sphere.
But assuming your theory instead: You're saying not only that at least one crew member survived the trip through the black hole, but that he or she happened to be thinking, after emerging from the black hole, about being on the bottom of an ocean hundreds of years before being born. And not only being on the bottom of the ocean, but that the entire ship was there too.
Occaam's razor would tell us that there is no explanation, and that the movie was simply contrived this way to make the story possible.
as other people have said...nothing about Black Holes is concrete. Science itself isn't concrete...that's why it's called "The THEORY of Relativity" and "Newton's theory of gravitation". We don't know for certain that these forces exist...but we don't have a better explanation.
I could say that a black hole omits a sound wave which makes you crap your pants if you're within 100k miles of it...but you wouldn't be able to prove me right or wrong. It's a completely unfounded theory, but it's still a theory.
No one knows the true power of a blackhole. The one thing we do know is that whatever goes in, never comes back.
A Black hole is the one thing that can devour all matter. not sure about time since there is no matter that can craete time or change it.
Unknown unless we do go in there. I wont. the french people can since they made a machine that blows up dark matter.
Are we even certain black holes exist? As far as I know (which isn't very far), they, too, are the product of physics laws and reasoning. Based on what we do know, black holes seem a logical possibility, but, as for "witnessing one," I don't think it's happened.
shareYou can't "see" a black hole since it doesn't emit light, which is necessary for sight. What can be witnessed is the theoretical effects that a black hole would have such as the bending of light and the drawing in of stars (in the case of supermassive black holes) and the occurrences of quasars.
Regardless, there's no such thing as absolute certainty.
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."
- Socrates
____________________
Proof God Exists! http://www.thercg.org/books/dge.html
Well, all right, to my (again, limited) knowledge, the "theoretical effects" of a black hole have never been observed. Have they been?
share[deleted]
We never saw the ship enter the black hole. It seemed CLOSE to it. My take is that it entered a wormhole, taking the ship back in time. Only a guess.
share