>lived on the ship for 23 years
>used hypersleep a few times
>was probably still awake for at least half the time based on how much he aged
How did he survive? What did he eat? Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
yes
>wake up
>fap
>work for 6 hours
>fap
>cryosleep before hungry
>repeat
why didn't he hypersleep the whole time?
he was going to solve the mystery of gravity all by himself on that spaceship
too busy making deathgrips albums
noided
He wanted to take a deep whiff off Anne's used underwear.
He became the beast that he worshipped
He watched footage
You still age during hyper sleep, it’s not stasis in this movie.
He specifically said he didn’t want to sleep his entire life away
>You still age during hyper sleep, it’s not stasis in this movie.
why wasn't matt damon's character aged by 23 years then
He did. You never saw his earlier self
he was 2yo when he got to the planet and realize it was all icy icy
Considering he died an hour later, I’d say that was a good move
Psychology.
You ever sleep in too much for too many days?
You become really depressed and your mind demands real world stimulation.
perhaps this is analogous to internet usage?
it goes it goes it goes it goes it goes it goes
GUILLOTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
NUH!
headed off between and beneath everything fragmented figure of speech
YUHHHHH
YUH
>sends his daughter on a ship with a Black person on it
Go back to your containment board
thats the best bait you could come up with?
if you turned on a black light it would look like a frickin basquiat in there
>Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
They had water generators and protein printers, because Nolan is a moron
but if they can sythnesis food they dont need to find a new planet
Yes hence "nolan is a moron"
If he had 33 years why didn't he just warp drive over to the other planets and check them out. He had plenty of time, they were only down there for like an hour.
because the film simultaneously flips between fuel being very important and not important at all. this was one of the times where it was important, while them fricking around on waterworld it mattered not a bit.
The moon's gravity is 1/6th of Earth's gravity. According to this movie then, time is 1/6th slower on the moon than it is on Earth. This could be experimentally proven by sending a probe with a Rolex strapped to it to the moon and back and seeing if the time shift happened. The movie explains at one point that there is an orbital distance away from the planet where the time doesn't shift so why didn't Neil Armstrong, who was back in time by 1/6th, receive the World Series winners from Buzz Aldrin or whoever the frick was busy jerking off on board and make them both rich? That didn't happen which means that time travel isn't real which means Nolan is a hack.
Checkmate reddit
>receive the World Series winners from Buzz Aldrin or whoever the frick was busy jerking off on board
Michael Collins
But time is affected by speed, not gravity
No it's gravity
In fact, gravity causes time
how could gravity cause time if it implies things existing in time in the first place
moron
Earth’s gravity itself is not strong enough to warp time any stronger than 1/6th of that. A black hole is like a bajillion times more dense than Earth and can actually create time dilation effects that are easily noticeable. That said, we do see time dilation effects on the moon and we see it’s ahead by 56 microseconds every day.
How do they even measure that? Wouldn't any time measurement device have its own operation influenced by its environment? How do we know whether time itself is moving differently or if the moon's environment just causes the clock to be wrong for mundane reasons?
atomic clocks. the ones on gps satellites are periodically reset in line with ones on earth for the same reason.
Atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks we have, but they're still not perfect. I have to reset the clock in my car occasionally because it runs too fast and gets ahead of my phone clock. That doesn't mean time is literally passing more quickly in my car.
he asked how it was measured.
I know what I asked. I asked how they know time is moving differently and not just the clocks being fricked with by their environment and running differently.
Option A:
>The clock is perfectly correct but all of time in the local area has sped up which makes the clock also run differently.
Option B:
>Time in the local area is exactly the same but some other factor of the environment has simply made the clock wrong.
My car's clock is an example of option B. How do the scientists know for certain that A is happening rather than B?
they have more than one clock
You are asking a philosophical question then, whether clocks actually measure time or is there a true time that is beyond any device's ability to measure because of other unknown factors. Fortunately, we basically define time as our ability to measure change via clocks, so it's axiomatically true.
Furthermore all of the results fall in line with the expected outcomes derived from other axioms of maths and physics.
They can also measure time dilation from the variance in how long a beam of light takes to travel from the earth to the moon and back (2.5 seconds is the calculation of we consider both to be in the same frame of reference). Because the moon is a few microseconds ahead of schedule, the beam of light would arrive a little earlier than expected. Either way these effects are very minuscule at this scale and time delay from the speed of light is a much bigger issue for communication than time dilation.
But is time changing or are the light particles just being slowed down? Why do we assume that photons can't change their speed?
>being slowed down
*being sped up
Whichever it is, how do we verify it's not the light itself just traveling differently?
The moon’s frame of reference is ahead of schedule in comparison to the earth’s so when the light bounces off the moon, the light arrives earlier on earth even though the speed of light technically did not change. The various atmospheric effects and other minute details like the shifting distances of celestial bodies are also accounted for in these calculations.
>the light arrives earlier on earth even though the speed of light technically did not change
This is the part that feels like it's always just handwaved away. It's assumed that the speed of light didn't change even though we can see the light arrived at a time inconsistent with what we know to be the constant speed of light. It just seems absurd to me, like they declare time dilation to be the answer specifically because it's the only explanation that preserves our present conception of the speed of light even though it makes no sense.
Like if I travel 60 miles on a highway with a 60mph speed limit, arrive at my destination in 50 minutes, and declare that the only possible explanation is that time warped around me because I couldn't have possibly just been breaking the speed limit.
possibly the worst crime of the internet is people conflating "i don't understand" with "it can't be true".
I didn't say it can't be true, I said there are holes in the explanation which make me question it because it feels like there are very key points that hinge on big assumptions.
It only feels that way to you because you believe a post on Cinemaphile is supposed to be a lecture and is supposed to give you all the answers.
>question -everything-
i can see we're falling into a conversation pit where you blame it all on the israelites.
>point out a gap in the explanation and how it relies on big assumptions about fundamentally important things
>I must be some /misc/ conspiracy theorist obsessed with israelites
Why are you derailing the conversation in this way? It's okay to just say you don't know or that there IS no satisfying explanation. This level of defensiveness is bizarre, I'm literally just asking questions.
The only one being defensive is you because you refuse to actually contribute anything to the conversation other than asinine suppositions that everyone else is wrong and you’re right even though you haven’t even begun explaining why you should be.
If my questions have answers you could just provide them. If they don't have answers we could talk about that, maybe there's some REASON they make these assumptions. I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but apparently asking these particular questions isn't allowed according to you?
>only authorities are allowed to ask questions
How do you think people learn?
>How do you think people learn?
there are countless resources beyond asking Cinemaphile if you want to learn (which you don't)
We're having this conversation here, explanations were given, so I was asking questions about those explanations and saying why part of it sounds strange to me. Instead of an answer or an explanation as to the flaw of my questioning or anything else, I'm suddenly bombarded with insults and told to go look it up myself and treated as if I'm some arrogant butthole telling everyone else how it is just because I essentially said, "This is how that sounds to me and why, is there an answer for this?"
You haven’t made a single worthwhile reply in this conversation fyi. Everything you’ve said equates to whining and personal drama that has nothing to do with addressing the topic you actually say you want to learn about. Go ahead and tell us why relativity is not a good theory and what your alternate explanation is for these measurable effects please.
I’ve already provided answers to your questions. The frame of reference between the moon and the earth is different due to their speed and gravity which causes spacetime to warp differently around each body. This changes the time it takes for light to travel around it even though the speed of light does not change. Relativity is able to accurately predict these effects.
Now it’s your turn to tell us why you think this is wrong and why the speed of light travelling between the moon and the earth differs than what would be predicted in a unitary frame of reference between the two.
*due to their speed and gravity and distance apart
Let's be clear: I'm not saying I think it IS wrong, I'm just saying you could explain the phenomenon with something as simple as
>Photons can be affected by gravity to a degree which alters their speed enough to cause this change in timing without requiring any change in how time flows anywhere in reality.
So I'm just curious as to why every explanation demands the speed of light to be constant and how that's even proven. As it stands, it seems like they prove the speed of light is constant by explaining any changes in the speed of light with new theories like time dilation.
>different due to their speed and gravity which causes spacetime to warp differently around each body.
Anon's question is about this. How do we know this to be the case
No one will give satisfying answers here. These are complex topics that a rando on the internet doesn't have the patience to explain to you in detail. You can just search on Youtube "Why is light speed constant?" or every other question you have and it will be better than whatever answer you get here
>how do we know this to be the case
We made a mathematical model that predicts outcomes and then we make experiments to measure the outcomes and we see it is accurate. A theory is not an exact replica of the universe - it is a heuristic. As soon as a better one is found, it will be replaced.
The speed of light and its constancy is measured in experiments with very short distances and vacuums. The “effect of gravity on photons” at a macroscopic scale is just that - relativity. On a microscopic quantum level we have theoretic “gravitons” which we still have not yet found and which would help us unify quantum mechanics and relativity. You are trying to disprove relativity by implying answers exist elsewhere, but those answers are already being pursued by science and would only serve to make relativity even more concrete.
thx
>As soon as a better one is found, it will be replaced.
That's verisimilitude then: we are telling ourselves better lies with no epistemic closure.
What would circumvent this heuristic methodology is where our ability to guess is more accurate than our ability to model accurately; where you can predict correctly without explaining how you came to that prediction.
This will most likely be the route of solving NP-Hardness problems with AI where the heuristics are mechanically unknowable so answers will proceed our understanding of process (model); we'd then have to work backwards to develop models to understand a heuristic (though most likely, we'll probably just enshew heuristics altogether as a path to knowledge).
Long story short, we'll reach a point of P=NP but not know it, and when we try to understand it, it'll just be turtles all the way down so we just accept it.
But then again this is AGI speculation; I just think we should get better at using our intelligence to ask better questions/prompts rather than spin our wheels of intelligence developing detached ethereal Pure Math models.
Word salad cope. Provide a better theory or frick off.
I don't have to.
The world turns without theory.
Theory is a cope.
K
this is what the unibomber referred to when he talked about "over-educated liberals"
I doubt the guy you’re replying to is a liberal
everyone who doesn't agree with me is a liberal
Well unfortunately for you the theory of relativity, Manhattan Project, and the moon landings all happened under Democratic presidents (Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, respectively).
everyone is a liberal compared to ted
Um ..... he was very liberal in the classical sense of the word
are you absolutely positive you know what a "classical liberal" is?
I'm not a liberal.
I just think intellectualism is a dead end of creating endless theories to self-validate: neverending narrative construction for profit.
I do think Ted was onto something though with pointing out the over-sophistication of modernity as a coping mechanism especially with technology and science.
Trying to be "the smartest guy in the room" is ultimately meaningless and is become a spent force.
lol "intellectualism is dead" yet here you are, spewing pseudo intellectual word salad onto a forum.
what you really want to say is "everyone should be dumber than me so i don't feel insecure"
>i'm completely ignorant of the topic
>but take my lines of questioning seriously as if i were an authority
no?
Bro you can study this shit online no one is stopping you. You take multiple measurements in various contexts, create mathematical models to account for any variable you can think of, then test predictions and see how accurate they are (which they are). This shit had been accurately determined and tested by multiple parties across the world since the 1920s. Quit asking to be spoonfed.
And no it’s not handwaved away. That’s literally how relativity works. If you were to do the experiment backwards and shoot the laser from the moon you’d be seeing the laser bounce arrive slightly slower than what you’d expect.
*if you were an observer on the moon I should add
>It's not handwaved away, it's just how it works!
Nothing in your post actually addresses the problem I was pointing to. I asked about the EXPLANATION for the result and you just repeated that the result has been verified rigorously. I have no doubts about the results, I understand that the light arrives at different times based on where it originates and where it goes. But the EXPLANATION of time dilation seems like a flimsy way to prop up our mathematical models just because they so strongly rest on the speed of light being constant.
>dude what if they were wrong?
Ok why?
>dude what if I went faster than the speed limit and that was the explanation?
Ok first explain why the speed of light would theoretically be changing beyond the effects of travelling through different mediums (which are already accounted for)?
The reason relativity is used as a theoretical model is because it explains things really well. Feel free to come up with a totally new theory if you believe it’s better.
You know you look really stupid trying to argue this shit all the while claiming you know nothing about it.
he's claiming he just wants to learn, but it'd really fricking annoying because he expects everyone on Cinemaphile to explain it to him instead of using Google which could answer any question he has.
what a fricking moron.
what do you mean by "time itself"?
The difference between my car's clock being fast on its own making it out of sync with my phone's (internet-updated) clock and the car clock going fast instead being an indication that sitting in my car will make my body age faster by that amount.
Gravity could be slowing down or speeding up the light itself with nothing else changing, but if the speed of light must be constant then the only explanation is time warping to make the light SEEM faster or slower when it's just a difference in local time going faster or slower in each place.
Obviously all our current models point toward the latter but I was just commenting on how a lot of the explanations kind of make it sound like the model is being stubbornly upheld by creating new and more complicated theories to layer on top.
>Gravity could be slowing down or speeding up the light itself
This doesn’t disprove lightspeed isn’t a constant btw. It’s like saying a speed bump disproves a car can go 200mph.
Also you’re fundamentally not grasping what time dilation actually is. “Time dilation” isn’t just some random number we decide to add or subtract from an equation. It is the difference between two different measurements made at two different reference frames. The way to reconcile these reference frames is to understand them as being different points on “spacetime”.
>This doesn’t disprove lightspeed isn’t a constant btw.
Do you not understand what "constant" means? It's not a question of how fast light CAN go, it's a question of whether or not light ALWAYS goes ONE speed with NO VARIATION.
That’s not actually what they mean by constant btw.
Light does indeed go at one speed with no variation. Same with force fields that create our universe. However when you compare the travel speed between two reference points and you have various obstacles like different mediums, forces, and spacetime curvatures in between, you will get a different measurement than if there was a perfectly “flat” vacuum in between them. Regardless of this, the speed of light is indeed a constant. What is not constant is the path that light travels.
>man who is significantly dumber than the people who made atomic clocks tell us why atomic clocks are inaccurate.
Not what I said.
>lose 20 years on water planet
>realize all the chicken, waffles, and watermelon are gone
>you will never taste grape juice again
>Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
that was kind of the point
>michael caines' character knows that his gravity-equation is bunk and decides to send his own daughter to be the baby factory/progenitor of all future humankind
>caine and the team know that it's impossible to determine if the forward scientists are even alive to contribute to the gene pool
>the men chosen for this mission are two whites and a black
why does michael caine hate asian people? he's essentially genociding the entire race.
there had been a world war and it was implied what was left of nations didn't get along or have the resources for cooperation.
Deleted scene explains the Blight came out of Wuhan.
I get pissed when someone is 10 minutes late no fricking way I would be able to wait 20 something years. Could he get back on his own? If not I'd just set hypersleep to 50 years
Lol imagine if they went down like “be back in a couple years just getting one reading” and instead they fricking stay for two fricking decades and come back like “oh sorry haha we got tied up and lost track of time”
I’d kill a mf
>Romilly what did you do all these years?
>My existence is a momentary lapse of reason, got the DNA of gothic lemons
>tars, give me the gravity data
I KNOW THE FIRST 3 NUMBERS
>Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
They probably packed 10 years of food/water... for 6+ people.
He couldn't even jerk off because they could have walked in at any moment
>start off with nervous masturbation, nervous they might come back and catch you in the act
>eventually start getting off to the thrill of them possibly catching you
>spend 20 years doing this
>they don't catch you, die 2 hours after they get back
Why was MC Ride in Interstellar? But regardless, Bravo Nolan I love you!
He couldn't have known if they died down there or whatever happened. If he went into Cryo sleep there is no telling some rescue team would wake him up so he just waited
>even if we somehow managed to travel at the speed of light, it'd take us 4 fricking years to get to the nearest apparently habitable exoplanet
Grim
>How did he survive? What did he eat? Surely they didn't pack decades worth of food and water.
i mean, if you start think about it, the plot has a ton of unexplainable facts, like only corn grows, why? what happened? bio war?
>EUREKA!!
>EUREKAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>I SOLVED GRAVITY! Turns out we need the mass of 10 billion solar masses to warp space time aint that cool!
>*so you can get us all in space right?*
>lol no
what flick is this?
Whats the name of this?
peewees big adventure