Fantastic Four reboot

[Devil_666]

It is possible for planets to be habitable orbiting a black hole and Gargantua's disk provides the light and heat.

BUT... the problem with that idea is, if the black hole was providing the light and heat for the planets then Coop would've disintegrated before he ever came close to reaching the event horizon/singularity. See the flaw? If the black hole is generating the same heat as a star, then it would have the same properties i.e. it's impossible to land on the sun because anything man-made that was approaching it would burn up before it ever came close to reaching the surface.

 

[Snake Plissken]

BUT... the problem with that idea is, if the black hole was providing the light and heat for the planets then Coop would've disintegrated before he ever came close to reaching the event horizon/singularity. See the flaw? If the black hole is generating the same heat as a star, then it would have the same properties i.e. it's impossible to land on the sun because anything man-made that was approaching it would burn up before it ever came close to reaching the surface.

 

[GasparZizou]

BUT... the problem with that idea is, if the black hole was providing the light and heat for the planets then Coop would've disintegrated before he ever came close to reaching the event horizon/singularity. See the flaw? If the black hole is generating the same heat as a star, then it would have the same properties i.e. it's impossible to land on the sun because anything man-made that was approaching it would burn up before it ever came close to reaching the surface.

Wait, first the plothole was that there was no star, I assumed you thought that was a plot hole cause you thought planets couldn't survive without a star.

Nope, there's no flaw, I touched that subject in one of my replies to darthkostis, the 5D bros aided Coop and TARS to get past the event horizon, hence why TARS was able to get the data and survive.

 

[Solidus]

The movie didn't make sense. If I recall correctly, Gargantua was a quasar (a black hole that's currently feeding), and the diffused matter in the accretion disk would've generated heat at millions of degrees centigrade, from friction and gravitation tidal forces. Mconaugheyheyhey would've been vaporized before even being able to approach the event horizon. And if I recall correctly, he did fall inside of it, before the extra-dimension thing-a-ma-bob took him to the fairy land, where crack addicts go when they have a high.

Now, if Gargantua was not in a feeding state, that would've been possible. But, you're talking about a freakin' quasar that millions of times hotter than the sun. You can't get physically close to something like that.

 

[GasparZizou]

The movie did make sense though, all of it.

Where did you read it was a quasar? Quasars are something that's outside some supermassive blackholes and extend over galaxy-level distances, Gargantua is most certainly not hosting/powering a quasar, and in the movie they say it's a black hole, besides you don't actually see him fall inside, you see a weird transition, which was the 5D dudes helping them get past all the blackhole ****.

 

[Solidus]

I think it would've had to have been a qusar to provide visible light and heat to it's neighboring planets. Black holes don't emit radiation in either the visible or infrared (heat) spectrum, unless it's produced indirectly from matter in the accretion disk that they're actively feeding on. Stellar-mass black holes have never been observed to behave in the way that Gargantua did... heck, you can't even see them, unless if it's through gravitational lensing, or some star that's orbiting an invisible object and losing mass.

 

[RIDDICK]

Fant4stic posts, fellas!

_

 

[GasparZizou]

I think it would've had to have been a qusar to provide visible light and heat to it's neighboring planets. Black holes don't emit radiation in either the visible or infrared (heat) spectrum, unless it's produced indirectly from matter in the accretion disk that they're actively feeding on. Stellar-mass black holes have never been observed to behave in the way that Gargantua did... heck, you can't even see them, unless if it's through gravitational lensing, or some star that's orbiting an invisible object and losing mass.

Black holes can have disks too, hell that's how most black holes are portrayed in didactic images, it isn't the black hole emitting heat and light, it's all the material in the disk.

Sure they have, and that's how you can see Gargantua, due to the gravitational lensing.

It seems to me that when one plot hole is explained you guys are trying to make up others I wonder what you guys think of negative space

Fant4stic posts, fellas!

Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

[Solidus]

Black holes can have disks too, hell that's how most black holes are portrayed in didactic images, it isn't the black hole emitting heat and light, it's all the material in the disk.

Sure they have, and that's how you can see Gargantua, due to the gravitational lensing.

It seems to me that when one plot hole is explained you guys are trying to make up others I wonder what you guys think of negative space

I'm not making up anything...

Explain to me this: If we're talking about actual astronomy, then how could Gargantua provide adequate light and heat to its neighboring planets and have far less luminosity than the sun, or any visible star for that matter? The fact is, that you can't see stellar mass black holes. The ones that were actually observed (and I'm talking about actual black holes, not the ones in Hollywood movie scienczzz), were only observed indirectly though lensing or stars that were orbiting and/or losing matter to an unknown object. Black holes are NOT luminous, and for stellar mass black holes, their accretion disks are nowhere to be seen, from what's been observed so far.

Quasars on the other hand are very luminous. There's a lot of matter going into them, and a lot of friction being generated safely away from the event horizons, where visible light and heat are produced and can be radiated away without being sucked in.

I think Interstellar's problem, was that it was trying to incorporate properties of a quasar and a stellar mass black hole with Gargantua. A lot of physicists praise the movie, but physicists aren't astronomers...

 

[GasparZizou]

I'm not making up anything...

Explain to me this: If we're talking about actual astronomy, then how could Gargantua provide adequate light and heat to its neighboring planets and have far less luminosity than the sun, or any visible star for that matter? The fact is, that you can't see stellar mass black holes. The ones that were actually observed (and I'm talking about actual black holes, not the ones in Hollywood movie scienczzz), were only observed indirectly though lensing or stars that were orbiting and/or losing matter to an unknown object. Black holes are NOT luminous, and for stellar mass black holes, their accretion disks are nowhere to be seen, from what's been observed so far.

Yeah you kinda were making it up, because Gargantua isn't a quasar, a quasar =/= a black hole.

Where do you get that it has far less luminosity than the sun? That is pure assumption on your behalf, nothing that the movie provides.
I just told you that you can't see black holes unless they bend the light around them like Gargantua does.
And no, their accretion disks have been seen, how can they not be seen if they are luminous?

Again, Gargantua is NOT providing the light or heat, its disk is, seems to me you're assuming some black holes can't have disks, anything that has mass can have stuff orbiting around it, including any kind or size of black hole.

Quasars on the other hand are very luminous. There's a lot of matter going into them, and a lot of friction being generated safely away from the event horizons, where visible light and heat are produced and can be radiated away without being sucked in.

I think Interstellar's problem, was that it was trying to incorporate properties of a quasar and a stellar mass black hole with Gargantua. A lot of physicists praise the movie, but physicists aren't astronomers...

No, it is not trying to incorporate properties of quasars at all, this is honestly the 1st time I've ever heard Gargantua is a quasar, it's not, I don't get why would you even think Gargantua is or has a quasar, it's just a black hole with an accretion disk.

Quasars extend over galaxy level distances, they´re like accretion discs but millions of times bigger.

That is not a problem nor a plot hole.

 

[GeneralZodLives]

I hope the movie isn't as awful as this thread.

 

[karamazov80]

I hope the movie isn't as awful as this thread.

An hour and a half of 4 amateur star gazers and their nemesis Ragman speculating to the scientific accuracy of a popular movie?

Sign me up!

 

[Solidus]

Gaspar needs to take an astronomy course and not base his science on a single movie .

 

[GasparZizou]

Me? You're the one who confused a quasar with a black hole and thinks black holes can't have accretion disks and said disks aren't observable sorry dude but you're wrong, on all of those.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Gaspar needs to take an astronomy course and not base his science on a single movie .

Maybe he has no arms or legs and can't get out. Ever think of that?

 

[Wor-Gar]

I have a question to all the scientists here: what is time?

 

[GasparZizou]

I have a better question, what is love?

 

[Solidus]

Me? You're the one who confused a quasar with a black hole and thinks black holes can't have accretion disks and said disks aren't observable sorry dude but you're wrong, on all of those.

Stellar massive black holes were never observed to have visible accretion disks. They aren't luminous, because visible light travels in arcs beyond the event horizon and doesn't radiate away. That's why they're called "black" holes - you can't see them. Quasars (aka. black holes that are feeding), on the other hand, are visible, because the large amounts of mass being pulled, and consequently, the heat and light being generated lies in a region that's outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is still less than the speed of light.

What I'm getting at, is that there was no way the planets in Interstellar could have gotten their light from Gargantua. If it was super massive enough to generate gravitational tides, and spiral the matter of a nebula or star well outside of its event horizon, then, possibly yes. But, it was a dormant (non-feeding hole), and it shouldn't have been luminous at all. Even the visible light arcs that you see around it in the film are pretty absurd - they shouldn't have been visible at all.

Edit: Just to clarify, I had to check back the image of Gargantua, and it wasn't feeding at all like I previously assumed. At least that would've made some sense as to how the planets were getting light.

 

[Biojex]

I have a better question, what is love?

Must resist roxbury gif usage....

 

[Solidus]

By the way, BEST derailment of a Fantastic Four thread, ever...

Too bad it had to be Interstellar, though.