In Reply to: RE: Intestellar, not so stellar posted by mkuller on September 7, 2015 at 09:07:54:
I did see it on the big screen. Well, a big huge theater screen, anyway. The science even if it was accurate which I highly doubt was trite and dull. That's my main gripe - that Kip Thorne, the science guru who acted as advisor for Interstellar, Was SO DULL. Besides, all the key features of Interstellar, including the science and the time travel, were already done in Contact, and much better. Even the special effects in Contact were superior and that was 20 years ago! Hel-loo! Hey, I like time travel movies as much as the next guy but good ones, ones like Contact, Back to the Future and the Time Machine. As for Gravity, at least it had some suspense and very good special effects. Unlike you know what. As far as the time travel science it was totally bogus. The aging of people on Earth compared to an astronaut traveling near the speed of light is a paradox. It all depends on which system is defined as the one at rest. Hel-looo! In other words it's strictly a literary device. It's not science.
Edits: 09/07/15 09/07/15 09/07/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Intestellar, not so stellar - geoffkait 10:34:16 09/07/15 (7)
- Considering the aging differential, I thought it was all in the right directions. - free.ranger 14:32:10 09/07/15 (5)
- RE: Considering the aging differential, I thought it was all in the right directions. - geoffkait 16:33:24 09/07/15 (4)
- Absolutely wrong. - free.ranger 17:10:14 09/07/15 (3)
- RE: Absolutely wrong. - geoffkait 17:19:04 09/07/15 (2)
- Alright, dude. Your point taken. - free.ranger 17:26:13 09/07/15 (1)
- RE: Alright, dude. Your point taken. - geoffkait 17:53:07 09/07/15 (0)
- RE: Intestellar, not so stellar - mkuller 12:50:46 09/07/15 (0)