100 Comments

  1. Domain of Science Author

    Lots of comments about Interstellar: They travel through a wormhole not a black hole. My response: They are the same thing. What!? Yeah. In the model of wormholes that I'm familiar with, the mouth at each end of the wormhole is a black hole. This was why I was using the two terms interchangeably. Here is a nice description: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/wormhole-black-hole-quantum-entanglement

    But perhaps Christopher Nolan was not thinking about a wormhole with black holes at either end, but another kind of 'gentler' wormhole. In that case, yeah it makes sense that you can see a projection of the stars and galaxies from the other side of wormhole on the face of this side. That's cool.

    Reply
  2. MrBrachiatingApe Author

    "…no known way that you could create gravity using magnets…" "…known way…create gravity…magnets…" "…you could create gravity using magnets…"

    Sweet. Let me get out my collection of naughty kitchen magnets. Reach for the stars, baby! Or perhaps accidentally crush myself in an intense field of pretty-much-debunked gravity particles! Either way, sssssSSSSSCIENCE! POWER! ACTIVATE!

    Reply
  3. SavageTech Author

    I'm not a physicist but i am smart enough to see when movies get it wrong and that drives me nuts but, what didn't see was how Interstellar represented the black whole. I thought that was really cool and the first time i had seen that in a movie.

    Reply
  4. Circuit Breaker Author

    Exploding asteroids. Okay, so here's one huge asteroid coming to Earth in one piece. Exploding it will not create a shotgun effect simply because the particles will spread in a form of sphere, so only those heading to Earth will actually reach the planet and burn in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Does it make sense? Avoiding collision using the rocket is still the best idea if the rocket will work and the crew doesn't miss the asteroid and be able to perform the touch down 😁.

    Reply
  5. Chuck S Author

    What he calls wormholes have been called hyperspace travel in the past. Slightly related, Jules Vern's Voyage to the Center of the Earth described tube from the surface to the center that let people go to the center protected from the lava.

    Reply
  6. HardRockMiner Author

    I don't watch Hollywood movies because of their flat out stupidity when it comes to physics. Don't even get me started on those stupid racing movies with that diesel guy. Watching even a clip of that shit makes me feel like my I.Q is lower somehow.

    Reply
  7. Michael Cantella Author

    From the movie Thor: If someone created an einstein-rosen Bridge using a massive electromagnetic pulse… Would anyone witnessing it be able to see the visual part of the EM spectrum? Possibly describing it as a "rainbow bridge"? 🤔

    Reply
  8. Shannon williams Author

    I love all the fake shit….."gravity", not a single scientist can prove or detect "gravity"…..But in space, not a problem😂😂😂😂

    Reply
  9. Ekitchi Hoshi Author

    thank you for pointing out the gravity tether issue, it immediately bugged me so much when I saw it.
    They decided to ignore common physics just to have this moment of tension for the plot…lazy writers…

    Reply
  10. joe jitsu Author

    Mad Magazine did a spoof on "2001 — A Space Odyssey" back when it came out. They called it "2001 Minutes Of A Space Idiocy." That seems about right.

    Reply
  11. Douglas Strother Author

    How Big Is Texas, Compared to Other Land Masses?
    https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/how-big-is-texas-compared-to-other-land-masses/
    Party until it hits!

    Reply
  12. Enigma Author

    About blowing up the asteroid with a nuke… wouldn't that be fine, though? I mean, isn't one of the ideas behind that that it will break up into smaller pieces whose trajectory will probably not be on a direct collision course with the planet? Not to mention that smaller pieces will probably burn up in the atmosphere and not pose as big a problem as one gigantic asteroid. I'm probably wrong, but he didn't explain it enough, IMO.

    Reply
  13. Michael Hutchison Author

    Here's another one. Underworld or 2 or 3, don't remember which, has a human/vampire/werewolf pulling a helicopter out of the air without holding on to anything else. I cringed so hard!

    Reply
  14. Bob Wagnon Author

    I think the one on the mission to Mars is his head does not lose all water but all moisture just immediately froze, if that is possible IDK.

    Reply
  15. Chris Yunge Author

    Just 2 remind everyone, 3 trillion degrees of gravity compression produces money carbon, no life nor future of life, example, take common bb match, 11 in, light it. Hold match at angle to guarentee complete burn, relight that…! Carbons, carbon regardless of your most eloquent theory….fact…!

    Reply
  16. Kur Norock Author

    The "red matter" from the Star Trek movie could very well be "strange matter". Strange matter apparently has properties like being perfectly dense, perfectly stable, and indestructible. It can also possibly have the ability to convert any other matter it comes into contact with into strange matter as well. Meaning, if you take a tiny amount of strange matter and fling it at a planet, the matter making up the planet would break down and become MUCH more dense until it turned into strange matter itself, causing a cascading chain reaction that consumes the entire planet.

    Soo, pretty much exactly what we see in the movie.

    Reply
  17. Kur Norock Author

    The "x-ray" scope doesn't necessarily have to be using x-rays, or even sending out beams of x-rays. It is still purely science fiction, but it could be that the scope is simply picking up background radiation that already naturally exists. And since most of the higher energy wavelengths are rare on the surface of the Earth, the scope might be capable of picking up several different wavelengths and combining them all to form the images. Hell, it could even be using Wi-fi. Just a simple detector, not an emitter.

    Reply
  18. Kur Norock Author

    The problem I had with Armageddon was that they drilled a few hundred feet into an asteroid the size of Texas. Talk about a waste of time. What is the difference between being a couple hundred feet down and being on the surface? When you are talking about something a thousand miles in diameter, a couple hundred feet mean nothing.

    Reply
  19. Raymond Cuttill Author

    I suspect the reason you find 2001 slow is that you are looking at it with 2019 eyes. in 1968 it was ground breaking – the first of its kind. You probably seen dozens of movies that do similar things now but none of them existed before 1968 and probably wouldn't exist but for 2001. In short it's boring if you've seen it all before but in 1968 no-one had seen it all before. Certainly not that spectacularly and it was OK to linger because they'd seen none of it before.

    Reply
  20. Robert Leather Author

    4:55 Yeah, you mean apart from the scene where she's driving around between the radio dishes on a radio barking orders… because I think we all know very well that using radio transmitters on site is a pretty big no no for radio receiving dishes. It's certainly an issue at Jodrell Bank so I can't imagine it being any different elsewhere.

    Reply
  21. Bryce Ring Author

    I am a bus driver, someone asks me "What time will you get to the city" 6:41 This is me thinking of all the variables and Posible chances of incidents given the number of incidences over the past week, comparing them to the current date and how different days times of the year may have more or less traffic/incidences what bus I have how fast it can accelerate how many older people onboard possibly increasing the braking distance unload times and how that will affect my timing interaction with the traffic lights for given time of day……

    Then I remember, I don't go to the city. and say, "You needed that bus in front" , which by now is leaving.

    Reply
  22. The Real Palleh Author

    Pretty sure that it's plenty radioactive from solar radiation, plus if you do it right, you could make it slash enough today the majority would burn up on impact.

    Reply
  23. Will G Author

    You are FUCKING GORGEOUS!!! If I win the lottery, I will pay your for your DNA , and create hundreds of offspring of yours!! The FUTURE should be YOU!

    Reply
  24. Vedrit Mathias Author

    I hate that you got stuck on "magnets and gravitons" for so long because you missed that the movie line was "control a stream of gravitons" rather than "creates a stream of gravitons"

    Reply
  25. T. J. Payeur Author

    Contact has one of my favorite lines.They are discussing proof. He asks "Did you love your father?" She answers "Yes. Very much". He answers "Prove it"…

    Reply
  26. Hulkieus Author

    The interstellar one, isn’t a black hole they go through, that is a wormhole, and it isn’t reflecting you are seeing the other side (a 3d hole if you will).

    Reply
  27. joseph couturier Author

    I work in a pulp papermill, for a chemical company. I use YouTube for viewing political discourse and cat videos . This video landing in front of me is clearly because I just finished some chemistry in the lab and came to sit down for a lunch break. They’re listening man. They are.

    Reply
  28. Jim Keel Author

    In that movie gravity wouldn't the mass difference between the 2 plus the velocity cause them both to kinda be pulled towards the center point between the 2. I might be wrong but was she anchor to another object.

    Reply
  29. Far Que Author

    Seriously? Won't watch this video because movies are MAKE BELIEVE!!!! There are no 90lb women on the planet who can throw men around who on average weigh one and a half times more, never mind 250lb men around, PERIOD. Guys won't stand there and take it except in woke whorrywood. One punch from her to a guy means his one punch back to her face would cave it in, not to mention a guy's ability to throw her around like a ball once she pisses him off. Therefore EVERY movie showing badass women is total BS. No need to review all the other make believe bs from flipping, flying cars taking out helicopters in the air to gas stations blowing up; that's all whorrywood pretend. Godzilla is more believable that anything whorrywood states is "based on a true story."

    So there is no need to get into anything about space travel because that is pulled completely out of whorrywood's ass; matter of fact, even NASA lies to us about what they can and can't do because it all comes down to getting their funding $$$$$$$$$.

    Reply
  30. *Beansie* Author

    The problem I have in films is that they seem to think everyone needs to fall in love. Romance doesn't make a movie better, in fact, most romance shown in films is highly dysfunctional and gross.
    Not every movie needs a love scene. Or a sex scene. Or romance. Or partnership of any kind. Just make a good godamn film already, it's not 1958 where the marketing crew thinks gals need a committed relationship to keep their interest on the screen.
    I HATE Chick flicks…in a serious way. They've ruined great filmmaking.

    Reply
  31. Jeremiah Noar Author

    Wonderful. I love seeing these kinds of things as a physics guy. My one critique 8:30. I believe that was a representation of a wormhole, not a black whole. and the stars and galaxy in it aren't reflections of celestial bodies in our part of space, but the celestial bodies shining through the other end of the worm hole. That was one of the parts of the movie that was very accurate with our understanding of Wormholes

    Reply
  32. C Jones Author

    For me it's Star Trek 2009, and how it's so critical they escape Vulcan's orbit before the Black Hole sucks them in. Ummm, the resulting Black Hole would have EXACTLY the same mass as the planet did. Actually, given the Black Holes smaller size they might actually find it EASIER to escape orbit given the larger distance to the gravity source.

    Reply
  33. Mr. Nelson's Classroom Author

    8:56 just a slight correction, what they were going through was not a black hole but in fact a wormhole. The black hole appears later on in the film. Quite beautiful if you ask me 🙂

    Reply
  34. This is Patrick Author

    3:38 Someone draws out the problem and explain it to us. Different people will interpret it with different levels of confusion and then at some stage someone gets it and tries to solve it.

    He just explained how we do the science thingy.

    Reply
  35. Old Yeller Author

    In Interstellar, I thought they were going through a wormhole, not into a black hole, which has no exit, so you can't go through it to the other side,
    because first, you would be ripped apart, and pulled into the very center of the black hole, and of course you would be crushed.
    A worm hole, what science fiction has shown, is like a tunnel, so you can pass through it to the other side.
    You said "black hole" in reference to the movie Interstellar, not worm hole.
    They can't possibly be the same thing, because a worm hole is not a collapsed star, and that is a sphere, like the Earth, where on Earth, gravity is pulling to the center.
    So you could NOT pass through. EVERYTHING would be drawn to the center, from ALL sides, no way out, NOT the same as a worm hole at all.
    I always wondered why people believe you can pass through a black hole, theoretically, because a black hole is a collapsed star, so a sphere,
    which shrinks and collapses until it sucks everything into it's center, including light.
    But since there are so many people that believe you can pass through a black hole, I was wondering about it, because I don't think there is an exit.

    Reply
  36. Old Yeller Author

    Is that "superposition" you spoke about (I don't know what that means) like Schrodinger's Cat? It can be either alive or dead, both or neither?
    Sorry, I just never heard that term before, and it made me think of the Schrodinger's Cat theory.
    I like mechanical things, things I can fix, take apart and put together, but this kind of math…???!!!#@%@##!!!????? YIPES!!

    Reply
  37. Old Yeller Author

    They did matter and anti-matter coming together and annihilating each other on the original Star Trek, 1967, "The Alternative Factor" the character Lazarus played by Robert Brown.
    Star Trek did EVERYTHING first!

    Reply
  38. Old Yeller Author

    You should actually WATCH Armageddon before you comment about the asteroid hitting the Earth.
    They do explain that they have to blow up the asteroid before it gets to the point where the asteroid is too close to the Earth, that the debris would impact the Earth in smaller
    pieces instead of one whole rock.
    They didn't blow it up with a huge nuclear bomb, they split it.
    They have to blow it up when it is far away enough that when it splits, or shatters, the pieces will pass by the Earth at a wide angle.
    Hard to explain, easier to draw.

    Reply
  39. MrHo0ly Author

    this guy with the alleged phd in physics is questionable. matter that passes the event horizon of a black hole does not "disappear" best proof of that would be a quasar for example, where matter mostly plasma escapes out of its poles.

    Reply
  40. Dan Watson Author

    I often find it funny when you have cop shows and they have racks of network servers in the back ground in cop HQ room where the detectives are working. Like, don't you know servers put out lots of heat and make noise and are usually in a totally different room where there's fire control systems? But it looks good on camera LOL!

    Reply
  41. Justin McVicar Author

    I was hoping he'd talk about the black hole in Interstellar. The physics engine they created for it was apparently revolutionary for SFX as well as science.

    Reply
  42. LaraD Author

    Man this guy is just adorable, and nothing like what normal people would imagine a physicist to be like! He’s the least nerdy nerd ever. Still loves Spiderman, aww. I’m so impressed by somebody who can casually say “physics is so easy”, um what? Plus love the love comments too.

    Reply
  43. wheelmanstan Author

    How about that scream though at 2:08 ? Fantastic.
    -But how fast would humans/spacecraft need to travel in order to fly out-land on-paint/attach rockets to an asteroid? I mean can we even detect it fast enough to respond in any way?
    What's your thoughts on Bob Lazar?

    Reply
  44. wheelmanstan Author

    How about that scream though at 2:08 ? Fantastic.
    -But how fast would humans/spacecraft need to travel in order to fly out-land on-paint/attach rockets to an asteroid? I mean can we even detect it fast enough to respond in any way?
    What's your thoughts on Bob Lazar?

    Reply
  45. xCRUCiOx Author

    Superman has a biomagnetic field around his body that he can manipulate and place around anything he touches, which allows him to catch and carry things without them being destroyed. He can carry a plane without it crumbling on itself and he can catch people without them being squished because of this.

    Reply
  46. richesandharmony Author

    My favorite part when speaking about love @ 20:10. " It actually ruins it, to reduce love to some kind of physical physics. 💘 " I love love."

    Reply
  47. Pinkie Love Author

    eraser xray vision, is based off of teraherz tech that is real , they use it today to protect the president. and the tech is getting better and better soon we will have portables were you can look into the body realtime. size of smartphones

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *