By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 said:
nanarchy said:

Not going to go into them all, but some of the obvious fails and plot holes.

a planet with waves of that height would have such massive tidal forces at play that it would tear the planet apart.

This is not true. http://ikjyotsinghkohli24.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/on-the-science-of-interstellar/

I was just reading through the comment section of that article. Fascinating discussions I can hardly understand half of. I didn't know about Kerr black holes before this movie or that there were so many competing mathematical and astrophysical theories about them. Too bad the comment section closed just when they started hammering the guy on what would actually be needed to get off the planet back to 'normal' time.

It's still a dumb decision to even look at that planet as a viable site. One more point, even if it was a suitable planet, they would have hardly started unpacking the first shuttle before the rest of plan 'A' people would start showing up. Massive traffic jam due to time dilation! Not very suitable for plan B either when any dangerous outside event now occurs 60.000 times more often. A 100 years would be over 6 million 'outside' years. That's a lot of possible comet strikes.

It was a plot device in the end. They needed the time to go away quickly. They could have visited a couple planets instead with long hypersleep journeys. This was more original, faster and more flashy/messy. Plus it got people talking about Kerr black holes.