Water mountains are my new favorite concept
You must log in or register to comment.
I really wanted to like Interstellar, but that whole “love can transcend dimensions” thing just really killed it for me. I mean the notion is lovely and so on, but it’d been doing a pretty good job at being a hard scifi story so it felt like a letdown to have that sort of hokey nonexplanation for the big picture, like the Nolans just gave up with the script at some point
If you ignore that one monolog and just accept that the extra-dimensional aliens/future human entities didn’t understand how to communicate with his daughter using only gravity, so they captured her father and had him do it, it makes a lot more sense.
And really that is what the script is trying to say… I think. It’s just very ham-fisted and ranty which does happen in Nolen movies. Basically "these beings have all the power in the universe compared to us, but without knowing (loving) the person they’re trying to reach they can’t find a way to get the message across.
Honestly in my head-cannon, the dude just went from self-sacrificing by falling into a black hole to looking at his daughter when she was trying to convince him not to leave. He’s more than a little emotional and we can’t expect him to make perfect sense.
Ah yeah I get what you mean, that’s a good take on it.
Despite what some people seem to have assumed, I do think Interstellar is definitely one of the best hard scifi movies to come out in recent memory, and I really do like many parts of it. I’ll have to watch it again some day with this reframing in mind
Wow. First time I’ve heard this complaint in the last 10 years. 🙄
What’s your point? Nobody’s allowed to voice their opinions if they’re not unique?
It’s OK for me to not like some parts of the plot and say it out loud even if it’s a common complaint, just like it’s OK for people to like those parts.
Well I’m just fucking sick of hearing this specific complaint again and again and again. Listening to techbros at reddit getting uncomfortable because ‘their’ hardcore sci-fi movie had human emotions, expressed by a woman. I mean, ewww cringe, amirite? Talk about time travel and shit some more. 🙄
Show me in the bowl of water how it’s done
Welp I’ll never see that atrwork the same ever again.
Temporary water mountains don’t count.
How about permanent?
Not sure how permanent these are nowadays.
The thickest ice mountain in Antarctica is almost 5km high. I believe it will last for a bit.
Bubba & Jimbo said they can roll enough coal in their lifted Ford F-950 to melt all the glaciers this weekend.
Sounds like a plan!
All mountains are temporary, it’s just a matter of timescale
(edit: fun fact, the Appalachian mountain range is older than trees!)
Appalachian mountains and the Scottish Highlands predate the Continental Drift, and are technically the same mountain range, they also predate sharks and bones.
Everything is temporary, in fact.
True. We need to ask that person how long a wave needs to last before it becomes a water mountain. I’ll tentatively say a year?
Grandpa was a ball earthist… It’s a shame we all carry in my family.
On another note, THE GOP JUST FUCKING DECIMATED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE IN THE US, DIDN’T THEY? These folks just get to walk around, mid manic episode, pointing rifles at poll workers, licking doorknobs during COVID, injecting bleach and horse paste into their eyeballs, committing January 6th while stabbing cops with sharpened flagpoles and worshipping a compulsive liar and convicted felon who doesn’t know where he is half the time…
We used to have places these folks could go to get help.
They probably saw it on Interstellar.
Yeah, Mount Horizon covers the entire planet
I’mm clearly having trouble seeing the mountain for all these ships.
A water mountain would be a cool set piece in a fantasy setting.
Water mountain, aka an iceberg. Checkmate, atheists.
Hmmm. That would finally explain water skiing.
I believe in water mountain. Just one of it. And it’s round. That’s why ships always disappear the same distance away if your height is the same, and why they disappear further away if you’re higher up, again with a predictable relationship. The water mountain surrounds two thirds of the earth, and goes all the way around the round earth.
I refuse to accept ships disappear behind something because I have never seen a ship disappear behind anything.
In my extensive experience of watching ships (I live near the coast and near a nationally significant port), I find that by the time they’re far enough away to be disappearing, they’re also small, indistinct and hazy. I can’t honestly tell you that in many years of looking, I’ve ever seen a clear cut case of the bottom of the ship disappearing before the top. It’s all very indistinct indeed.
If you want to convince flat earthers, the ship past the horizon thing isn’t going to do it.
There is no convincing them through any kind of logic or observation. The logical proof of the shape and size of the earth is remarkably simple and straightforward, with math any trigonometry or geometry student could prove on their own. Eratosthenes did it a few thousand years ago with observations from a deep well and the shadow of a vertical rod a significant and measureable distance apart on the same day at the same time. These are simple and direct observations that anyone could make and repeat themselves. If Eratosthenes proof isn’t clear enough to them, nothing will be.
There was even a documentary in which self professed flat-earthers performed a variation of this experiment with some careful arrangement of a laser over a large lake. Unsurprisingly, they did measure the curvature of the earth (with much less precision than Eratosthenes), but they still couldn’t accept the results.
I think we both agree that if someone really doesn’t want to believe something, they’ll disregard things that conflict with their world view.
What I suspect we’ll disagree on is the extent to which everyone, very much including those of us who consider ourselves rational and sensible and at the science-trusting end of debates, form our beliefs about reality via an almost exclusively social and societal process of parental beliefs, teacher beliefs, peer beliefs, reading on and offline, and interaction with others. Not through experiment. Rarely through actual evidence. Mainly through believing other people who we think are telling the truth or better informed than us.
This is the context for my point about the ships over the horizon thing. It’s not even very convincing evidence to someone who already believes the conclusion and sees a lot of ships sail away.
Stop trolling me by trying to blur the line between scientific processes and social belief structures. Claiming that I don’t also apply logic and scientific thinking to analyze my own beliefs is also petty rage-bait, as if epistemology hasn’t also existed for a very long time.
Honestly, I’m not trying to troll you at all. We all come across people who believe crazy stuff, but if you genuinely want to persuade people, recognise where they’re coming from.
I have some important questions for you if you honestly believe that your belief system was arrived at by the empirical process:
Firstly, think about that rather bold claim and compare it with how many things you believe are true and how much rigorous empiricism you’ve engaged with yourself, personally. (You can’t count any times when you just trusted someone else who claimed it by appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy, because that would be both a social source of belief and literally illogical.)
Secondly, what counts as correct science and what counts as bogus science, and by what means is that decided? What process decides which information goes where? Who makes the decisions and why are they the ones who do?
Thirdly, how do you, personally find out about that stuff? How many journals do you read regularly? How many things written by the people who saw the evidence did you ever actually read? Who wrote the things you did and do read, and why do you believe them?
Claiming that I don’t also apply logic and scientific thinking to analyze my own beliefs is also petty rage-bait, as if epistemology hasn’t also existed for a very long time.
I’m honestly very skeptical of how much self reflection you put into how you know what you know given that my claim that pretty much everyone comes to their beliefs about the world through social interactions (rather than via experiment and direct evidence) is so new to you that it made you angry. Yes, epistemology has been around a long time, but you simply can’t have studied Philosophy of Science and be flabbergasted by what I’m suggesting. It’s another example of you trusting someone else and believing their conclusions without going into it all on detail and questioning it for yourself. Before you get cross about that too, please read the next paragraph.
No one can read it all. No one can repeat even a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of the experiments. You can’t be an expert in all branches of science and philosophy even if you tried. You can’t even begin to read it all. So you take it on trust. This isn’t bad. It’s sensible. It’s how you were (correctly) brought up - trust what your teachers tell you about science, because your parents, who you trusted implicitly before you even walked through the door of preschool, brought you up that way, because they believed those sources of belief before you did.
If the New York Times claimed that some professors at Cornell had found a tweak of relativity that removed the need for a theory of dark matter or dark energy because it matches the observed mass and expansion of the universe, and that the new theory also removed the inconsistency between relativity and quantum mechanics, you would likely belive it, especially if other papers ran with the same story and clever people you know told you more details having read a write up in the New Scientist magazine.
And yet by the same process, we knew that Pons and Fleishman had attained nuclear fusion in the lab. How did we subsequently know that it was bogus? By the same social process. Hundreds of millions of people changed their beliefs about the world twice. A handful of people did something empirical.
None of this is bad. But don’t assume that an appeal to examine evidence that you haven’t investigated yourself is going to convince a skeptic. They think they’re being more rigorous than you. They weren’t brought up to believe teachers or they weren’t brought up to trust “scientists”. You won’t convince them with the same appeals to authority that work on you.
Really? I’ve seen it firsthand quite often. It’s very obvious when you’re in a kayak, because you’re so low to the water.
Yes. Really. I find it hard to believe that people can see that clearly at the sea horizon, because I just don’t.
Maybe it’s just hazier in my part of the world, and I mainly stand or sit on the shore. The sea is very cloudy round us, whereas I know it’s crystal clear on some parts of the world. But part of me still thinks you think you saw what you think you saw because I’ve genuinely tried to see it and can’t make out the detail. Maybe it’s just that most of the boats I watch to the horizon are oil tankers, and they’re just not very tall compared to their length.
Nope, I’ve definitely seen parts of a ship disappear. You can see the bridge and superstructure, then the upper parts of the hull, and then the whole boat. Under good conditions, you can quite clearly see the bridge, but not the rest of the vessel.
This would have been even more obvious in the age of sail.
Yeah, nowadays most places where people usually see ships are so polluted that they can’t see them disappear. Also, ships are so large that you have to look a the details to notice them decreasing.
The same applies to the stars, people just can’t see them anymore, so they never notice them rotating. People also do not navigate by the Sun anymore.
People nowadays are so disconnected from Earth that they do indeed have no problem believing it’s flat.
Imagine if we had some kind of tool we could use to see far away…
I don’t think this guy got the memo: the flat earth argument is that water finds its own level. “Large bodies of water don’t curve” as they say.
They believe that the ships don’t actually disappear and that the strong zoom of a Nikon P1000 can actually bring ships back from behind the “curve”.
They’re a very special set of people 👍
strong zoom of a Nikon P1000 can actually bring ships back from behind the “curve”.
wow, observation effects, these people are quantum idiots.
I thought they only believe their own eyes
dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!
Wait I have a meme for this (and absolutely no one is surprised):
There are “hills” on the sea. I doesn’t prove that Earth is not also round.
Yep. This is due to variations in the gravitational magnitude at any point from the earth, moon, sun, and other bodies, as well as the periodicity of the earth/moon/sun rotations interacting with friction (between the sea and the sea, the sea and the atmosphere, and the sea and the lithosphere), and creating a giant standing wave (which is constantly changing, like an instrument or a musical composition) of ocean water all over the earth. This doesn’t even take into account atmospheric pressure and water temperature/viscosity variations. The earth is a complex system with waves upon waves upon waves of interacting coupled oscillations all interfering with each other. Whoa 😳
And more. Major river discharge can raise the sea level in the area. Then big circular currents similar like when you stirr your cup of coffee or tea. Or chocolate milk 🤤
like an instrument or a musical composition) of ocean water all over the earth.
Somebody way better at music should find a way to turn that into music.
Always amazed me how such insignificant creatures, bacterium on the scale of the earth, can have such a big impact on the environment.
TIL, thank you
Shhh.
You’re gonna make their brains hurt.
Isn’t that how tides work? The hills move? I’m probably all wrong
