[removed]

In Interstellar they literally went out of their way to remove the doppler effect from the black hole's accretion disk to "avoid confusing the audience", there's a traversable and stable wormhole, and it seems no one who worked in it there knows what a Tesseract is.

Interstellar has very little in terms of scientific accuracy, feels like a movie made by someone who just had a spark of curiosity over space and just read bits and pieces of a bunch of Wikipedia articles.

The only accurate thing in it was the original black hole model, and that they refused to use it.

It has to go really fast, which means you have to go really fast to land on it.

[removed]

You might hear something at the same time you see it. That would be the sounds your ship makes when a whole bunch of electromagnetic energy hits it suddenly. Maybe a rattle or thud as your hull abruptly and unevenly expands just a little bit from heat. Maybe some weird noise if your ship is accidentally a radio receiver. A lot of things are accidentally radio receivers if the signal is strong enough.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The billowy puffy cloud effect we're are used to would not be present because it is the atmosphere pushing back that causes it. In space, each bit of debris would basically keep going in a straight line. Really an orbit around the local gravity well, but it would look like a straight line.

Watching the LEMs take off from the moon looked funny to me as a kid. The initial blast didn't billow. It didn't look like a blast so much as a bunch of sparks. I've been thinking about this get a while.

Actually, there could be a little of billowing, depending on how the ship blows up. If the blast starts with a relatively slow expanding has cloud and then later (possibly just a fraction of a second later) there is a faster expanding cloud, there might be some billowing when the fast has catches up with the slow. That could happen if relatively low energy stuff like the hull, cargo, life support, for example blows up first, and then high energy stuff like fuel and weapons blows up. Besides moving faster, secondary blast would probably be hotter and brighter.

I’m surprised you know what they were with how little literary resources you now have at your disposal.

This is what gets me about that damn Starkiller in the new stars wars movies. Not only it is financially infeasible asf but also the laser could've hit a million things on the way. Also killing off an entire solar system is peak overkill and would actually greatly hinder the galaxy's economy. Don't even get me started on the physics of that thing.

[removed]

[removed]

Explosions are possible (Solar Flares are explosions), fire needs an oxidizer (Oxygen is not the only oxidizer). Fire would look different in space though.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/can-spaceships-actually-explode-like-they-do-in-movies.html#:~:text=In%20space%2C%20there%20is%20no,once%20they%20%E2%80%9Cblow%20up%E2%80%9D.

[removed]

Badly researched movies physics wise, stop trynna find in-universe explanations, its just lazy/fantastical writing. I mean, wonder woman rode an RPG shell in her newest movie, dont see me trynna calculate her bodyweight and relative fps of the rocket. That's just hollywood.

2036 is when they expect the next closest approach so… maybe 13 years? It’s already close enough to suffer from the gravity in the situation and the’ve been watching it for 20 according to the article.

What’s wrong with planet orbiting black hole though?

[removed]

[removed]

What type of telescope do you need to see this? I am curious how powerful it needs to be.

Yeah i will if i can. This was taken on my moms iPhone because mine doesn’t have night mode

[removed]

[removed]