The Pitters' Place

Knowing that Instellar involves relativity might be a bit of a spoiler. Dunno.

Let me first say that I've never understood the theory of relativity. Meaning: I get what it says but have never understood it intuitively . I concluded that it must not be something that is supposed to be understood straightforwardly(like I assume about

quantum physics theories). So, I tend to roll my eyes at movies that play around with the theory of relativity (Interstellar, etc) because I've always assumed they took it too literally. That they treated time as too literal a thing...if you know what I mean. Then I listened to Neil deGrasse Tyson being asked about the movie Interstellar, and he gave the film a 9 out of 10 for scientific accuracy. Losing a point mainly for the main character surving entering a black hole. Which he then claimed as possible if you're trajectory isn't the center of it. I said to myself "ummm....what? 9 out of 10? Even with all the extreme relativity shit?" He goes on to explain that NASA is constantly correcting the time on orbiting satellites because of the difference in rate of time. I'm still think "what the fuck does that mean? Do you really mean that I if I have to exact, perfect watches telling the same exact time and I sent one out in orbit for a while they will eventually display different times? Are you bloody serious?"

But, seriously, what the fuck? If relativity is that literal my mind is blown and I'm freaking the fuck out.

Hm, I'm the opposite. Relativity is totally intuitive to me, but I cannot wrap my head around the explanations for it. It just is. The fact that it can be boiled down to formulas is nice, but I'll be god damned if I ever understand any of that rubbish.

Cassius Clay wrote:Knowing that Instellar involves relativity might be a bit of a spoiler. Dunno.

Let me first say that I've never understood the theory of relativity. Meaning: I get what it says but have never understood it intuitively . I concluded that it must not be something that is supposed to be understood straightforwardly(like I assume about

quantum physics theories).

sikax wrote:Hm, I'm the opposite. Relativity is totally intuitive to me, but I cannot wrap my head around the explanations for it. It just is. The fact that it can be boiled down to formulas is nice, but I'll be god damned if I ever understand any of that rubbish.

Everything's relative .

And yes, relativity absolutely is that literal. They've managed to reproduce the effect even on earth.

Oh yeah, and Interstellar had Kip Thorne, a world-famous astrophysicist, advising on the movie to help them keep it scientifically accurate. For a long time Nolan was going to have them be able to have faster-than-light travel in the movie, and after much debate and discussion about it, Kip managed to talk him into not doing that because it isn't possible.

sikax wrote:Hm, I'm the opposite. Relativity is totally intuitive to me, but I cannot wrap my head around the explanations for it. It just is. The fact that it can be boiled down to formulas is nice, but I'll be god damned if I ever understand any of that rubbish.

Oh.... I'm not even saying I understand the math that well....but more like I accept the math even though it conflicts with my intuitions. And why my mind is blown is that it's not just the abstract math that conflicts with my intuitions, it's the actual physical, everyday, common reality of it that also conflicts with my intuitions. I mean...we're correcting the time on satellites because of it? C'mon.

Gendo wrote:Oh yeah, and Interstellar had Kip Thorne, a world-famous astrophysicist, advising on the movie to help them keep it scientifically accurate. For a long time Nolan was going to have them be able to have faster-than-light travel in the movie, and after much debate and discussion about it, Kip managed to talk him into not doing that because it isn't possible.

Yeah...I was gonna say that Tyson also mentioned that they did have an astrophysicist as a consultant. And Tyson had actually been more sceptical regarding the science of a particular scene involving waves until he heard that guy's explanation for why it made sense.

Glad they took the light speed travel out because it does make the movie look more realistic.

And regarding time slowing down the faster you go, Tyson's explanations of the different rates of time focused more on the relationship between time and gravity. It just seems to make time "real" in a way I never quite imagined.

Someone asked an interesting question:

If this effect can be seen so readily, and you have a live feed between people on the ground, and some astronaut somewhere out in space, experiencing time at a slower rate...would the astronaut be seeing folks on the ground moving in slow-motion, while they see him moving fast?

Meh, I dunno, not that crazy to me. Perception is a bitch. Time is a weird, non-static thing. I felt like when I watched Interstellar everything made intuitive sense, even if I didn't know how to prove any of it.

Cassius Clay wrote: Someone asked an interesting question:

If this effect can be seen so readily, and you have a live feed between people on the ground, and some astronaut somewhere out in space, experiencing time at a slower rate...would the astronaut be seeing folks on the ground moving in slow-motion, while they see him moving fast?

I don't know this for sure, I think that

1) At the speeds at which we are capable of moving, the effect is far too small for human eyes or minds to detect
and
2) Yes, if speed is increased enough that it becomes noticeable, then you would be able to see things moving in slow or fast motion.

Yeah - I understand relativity intellectually, but not intuitively. The universe is weird.

It gets weirder with quantum physics! I did a course on that and we covered a lot of the technical maths and physics behind things like quantum teleportation and quantum entanglement, and it's surreal when the maths works out and makes it seem only logical that something completely insane would happen, like a quantum particle on one end of the universe instantly affecting another on the other end of the universe, without any communication between them. By now I've forgotten all the maths, but back then it blew my mind.

Gendo wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote: Someone asked an interesting question:

If this effect can be seen so readily, and you have a live feed between people on the ground, and some astronaut somewhere out in space, experiencing time at a slower rate...would the astronaut be seeing folks on the ground moving in slow-motion, while they see him moving fast?

I don't know this for sure, I think that

1) At the speeds at which we are capable of moving, the effect is far too small for human eyes or minds to detect
and
2) Yes, if speed is increased enough that it becomes noticeable, then you would be able to see things moving in slow or fast motion.

The other problem would be that for the astronaut to be moving fast enough for the effects to be noticeable, there would be a noticeable lag in the time it took for the message to get back and forth (because they would end up travelling a long way) further compounding the issue of being able to "see" the effect.