4 ms·
If you can't talk about Interstellar with somebody who doesn't understand topology, I will gladly do it for you. Maybe they're below you, but they're my favori
by stolio 12y ago
If you can't talk about Interstellar with somebody who doesn't understand topology, I will gladly do it for you. Maybe they're below you, but they're my favorite people because they're the people who will get as excited as me about how stars form and what happens when they collapse and how friggin awesome it is that the computer simulations in a sci-fi movie were so accurate that Kip Thorne thinks he can publish a few articles about them[0]. This is SO MUCH BETTER than having to talk to people about What the bleep do we know?
[0] - http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/ http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black...
- jordanpg 12y agoI didn't mean to imply they're below me, but I do stand by the idea that those kinds of conversations are only a shadow of the real big picture. But I definitely raise a glass to preferring Interstellar over What the Bleep. :) Here, here.
- guscost 12y agoThat is a cool movie. I've posted a layperson's review: http://guscost.com/2014/12/23/review-interstellar/ http://guscost.com/2014/12/23/review-interstellar/
- stolio 12y agoI apologize, I was being a bit presumptuous. When it comes to quantum physics I do see your point. For astrophysics I view the math as a stepping stone to understanding those things in the sky that we see at night. In that sense there's a bigger picture behind the big picture of the physics and we can all share in it. In QM, maybe not so much.