As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[INTERSTELLAR] There are spoilers here.

191011121315»

Posts

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Kind of irrelevant since Brand's ship never entered the event horizon.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Kashaar wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    This may be exposing a lack of education, but I don't think event horizon refers to an orbit; it's just a distance from the singularity.

    Yes - the distance at which a stable circular orbit would have objects traveling at lightspeed.

    Special relativity explains this.

    Black holes are gravity wells. So is the sun. It is just as possible to orbit a black hole as it is to orbit the sun. Obviously you need different distances and different "horizontal" speeds depending on how "deep" the gravity is.

    It's also explained that Gargantua is "gentle", so the event horizon is closer to the singularity. These planets are in the accretion disc around it instead, not actually in the event horizon. I think TARS explains that they entered the event horizon of the black hole after trying to leave orbit in an emergency from Dr. Mann's planet, which is where their issue came from.

    There's actually a few types of event horizons. There's the black hole "nothing can ever escape" event horizon, and then there's the "we can't situate ourselves from this thing" event horizon. It fell into the later, they just didn't have enough thrust to fix their rotational orbit and fell towards the gravity well, they were in their own event horizon. But they dropped enough mass that the orbit was able to pull away from it, so, in the end, they weren't really in the event horizon once they dropped off enough mass (which meant losing Cooper because of the need to manually deploy those launchers from inside (damage to the station?)).

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Kashaar wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    This may be exposing a lack of education, but I don't think event horizon refers to an orbit; it's just a distance from the singularity.

    Yes - the distance at which a stable circular orbit would have objects traveling at lightspeed.

    Special relativity explains this.

    Black holes are gravity wells. So is the sun. It is just as possible to orbit a black hole as it is to orbit the sun. Obviously you need different distances and different "horizontal" speeds depending on how "deep" the gravity is.

    It's also explained that Gargantua is "gentle", so the event horizon is closer to the singularity. These planets are in the accretion disc around it instead, not actually in the event horizon. I think TARS explains that they entered the event horizon of the black hole after trying to leave orbit in an emergency from Dr. Mann's planet, which is where their issue came from.

    There's actually a few types of event horizons. There's the black hole "nothing can ever escape" event horizon, and then there's the "we can't situate ourselves from this thing" event horizon. It fell into the later, they just didn't have enough thrust to fix their rotational orbit and fell towards the gravity well, they were in their own event horizon. But they dropped enough mass that the orbit was able to pull away from it, so, in the end, they weren't really in the event horizon once they dropped off enough mass (which meant losing Cooper because of the need to manually deploy those launchers from inside (damage to the station?)).
    No, "gentle" means the opposite of what you're saying here. Gargantua's event horizon is very far from the singularity and consequently the gravity gradient there is small. This is what allows Cooper to cross it without being destroyed by tidal forces. This situation can arise for a very high-mass black hole; the distance between a black hole's event horizon and its singularity is dependent on mass.

    I have no idea what you're on about with "different types of event horizons". You seem to be making up new physics. The term "event horizon" has a very specific meaning regarding black holes, and it refers to the distance from a black hole beyond which the escape velocity from is greater than the speed of light. If you cross an event horizon, you are not getting out (without space magic).

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    How about you google Ergosphere.

    edit: I'm starting to feel like Kryten here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxWN8AhNER0

    DanHibiki on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    I know what an ergosphere is. The presence of an ergosphere does not change the fact that you cannot escape having once crossed the event horizon. The ergosphere exists outside the event horizon.

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Simply releasing mass from your spacecraft does not alter the orbit at all. Both parts would just follow the original orbit next to each other. The reason they dumped mass is the same for any multistage rocket. The remaining engine doesn't have that push dead weight. Higher acceleration and less fuel required.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Ergosphere is an event horizon(or rather, it has an event horizon, making it the second of two event horizons of a spinning black hole) and matter within it is accelerated a times to speeds exceeding the speed of light outside the black hole. Matter accelerated to those speeds can escape causing the spinning black hole to lose some energy and decay.

    I think we've just encountered the middle of the conversation.

    DanHibiki on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Simply releasing mass from your spacecraft does not alter the orbit at all. Both parts would just follow the original orbit next to each other. The reason they dumped mass is the same for any multistage rocket. The remaining engine doesn't have that push dead weight. Higher acceleration and less fuel required.

    That's why I said "they just didn't have enough thrust". I sort of implied it when I said they could orbit away from it. Once they dropped the mass, they had enough thrust to reach escape velocity.

    The more mass you have, the more energy is required to break the gravitational pull of the black hole. So no, they weren't technically in the black hole's event horizon, they were in their local event horizon relative to their mass and acceleration. They could not escape the black hole until they shed the extra mass.

    Yes, we are all agreeing that event horizon is not the right term there, but to the layperson that is "good enough".

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Radar would have been useless, it's extremely reliant on wavelength. As are optics, btw, but more on that later.

    Time dilation at that scale means that you'd have to reprogram your sensor suite to be able to see anything down that gravity well. Which they might have done back on earth, but even so. In principle I guess you send in high frequency radio waves, and they'll slam together as they slow down, to become visible light. That light bounces off of your waves to become hf radio again once it leaves the black hole's time dilation zone.
    Now as light stays at lightspeed no matter what, on the planet you have about 3 microseconds between your wave hitting the top of the kilometer high wave and it hitting the bottom. Receiving outside of the time dilation zone, you'd see 1:60,000th of that; about 30cms worth of light travel or a signal difference of 3 gigaherz. Your electronics would certainly be able to work with that to extrapolate.
    The big question is where the High Frequency radio source is that lights up the water planet? Well, its the accrition disk, stupid. Or there might be several other black holes emitting radio waves, or even several stars (though their radiation would not be as high frequency, so it would show up as infrared instead. There was some stuff about this earlier; why was the water liquid etc.)

    And the normal visible light we see in space? It will appear on the planet as x-rays, mostly absorbed by water in the atmosphere. So the planet would be pitch black in the visible spectrum.

    Now this is a pretty interesting train of thought.

    I don't think that light's relative properties would change that much in the time dilation zone. Light can be slowed down and the top speed would be relative to the matter around it. So it should slow down in that zone then speed up again to normal speeds once it leaves it.

    It's difficult to picture how the time dilation would effect observation of the world. If time moves at different speeds at different parts of the planet you'd have a rainbow effect and strange lensing of distant objects and from orbit a massive red or blue shift in the spectrum.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Basically as you enter the event horizon of a black hole, an outside observer would see you red shift into nothingness, but not moving. I think. I'm no physicist though.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2014
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Radar would have been useless, it's extremely reliant on wavelength. As are optics, btw, but more on that later.

    Time dilation at that scale means that you'd have to reprogram your sensor suite to be able to see anything down that gravity well. Which they might have done back on earth, but even so. In principle I guess you send in high frequency radio waves, and they'll slam together as they slow down, to become visible light. That light bounces off of your waves to become hf radio again once it leaves the black hole's time dilation zone.
    Now as light stays at lightspeed no matter what, on the planet you have about 3 microseconds between your wave hitting the top of the kilometer high wave and it hitting the bottom. Receiving outside of the time dilation zone, you'd see 1:60,000th of that; about 30cms worth of light travel or a signal difference of 3 gigaherz. Your electronics would certainly be able to work with that to extrapolate.
    The big question is where the High Frequency radio source is that lights up the water planet? Well, its the accrition disk, stupid. Or there might be several other black holes emitting radio waves, or even several stars (though their radiation would not be as high frequency, so it would show up as infrared instead. There was some stuff about this earlier; why was the water liquid etc.)

    And the normal visible light we see in space? It will appear on the planet as x-rays, mostly absorbed by water in the atmosphere. So the planet would be pitch black in the visible spectrum.

    Now this is a pretty interesting train of thought.

    I don't think that light's relative properties would change that much in the time dilation zone. Light can be slowed down and the top speed would be relative to the matter around it. So it should slow down in that zone then speed up again to normal speeds once it leaves it.

    Wait, what?

    Light can be slowed down? How the hell does that work? The entire basis for the wackiness in special relativity is that light CAN'T be slowed down, that it ALWAYS is traveling at the same speed to all observers at all times. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have time dilation in the first place.

    Unless you're talking about the frequency of light, which CAN change?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Light can be slowed relatively to other matter and in mediums.

    pretty sure it gets slowed in large gravity wells relative to matter outside the effect of the gravitational well... I'll have to look it up, but I'm definitely sure that light can be slowed by passing it through a medium.

    DanHibiki on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Well yeah, light going through air or water or something slows down relative to light in a vacuum. Is that what was being referenced? I thought it was saying light slowed down because it entered the "time dilation zone."

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Very appropriately narrated by a Stephen Toast robot:
    http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

    I just phrased it really badly.

    DanHibiki on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Gotcha, sorry about the confusion.

    Carry on, at a speed consistent with the maximum allowed by your transmission medium.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    KPC wrote: »
    My favorite is the argument against the inability for them to know about the super tides on the water planet. If time dilation was so extreme that Brand would postulate that the precursor scientist must have crashed just minutes ago, and to the point that time was such a valuable resource, do you really think they had time to fly over the planet and see if anything changes?

    Dropping a probe would lead to the same issues; to anyone in orbit the probe would report "all clear" for years before any walls of water hit it.

    I don't think there would be much difference in the flow of time between low orbit and the surface of the planet. The crew were in a rush, so missing the waves is fine. The original scientist not noticing the waves doesn't, because at the very least she'd have orbited the planet once to see about landing someplace that wasn't a puddle.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I never got the sense the original scouts were in any position to leisurely pick a landing spot.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Several people are confusing orbit with suborbital. When they dtopped TARS and Cooper they were not in orbit- they were falling!

    Also look up the orbleth effect. Thrusting at the bottom of your route gives you an extra kick- you carry mass down, gaining speed from it, then lose at the bottom. Free extra speed.

  • KashaarKashaar Low OrbitRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Several people are confusing orbit with suborbital. When they dtopped TARS and Cooper they were not in orbit- they were falling!

    Also look up the orbleth effect. Thrusting at the bottom of your route gives you an extra kick- you carry mass down, gaining speed from it, then lose at the bottom. Free extra speed.

    Orbit is the same as falling, except you're going sideways so fast that you miss the surface.

    And yeah, that effect is great. I encourage everyone here to play some Kerbal Space Program to get a solid grasp on these concepts :)

    Indie Dev Blog | Twitter | Steam
    Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.

    I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.