 the same. It would have been a lot harder
to do any degree of realism.

~~~
erdevs
Yeah, Interstellar definitely scratched this itch for me, and I appreciated it
for doing so.

Certainly the theory has developed greatly since then. But being even somewhat
informed about the contemporary physical theory would've made the sequence
even more impactful and satisfying, for me personally.

I don't think technique would've necessarily required greater complexity or
difficulty. For example, one might have used the same planing technique, but
used different patterning and colorization, based on more mathematically
derived outputs. Not suggesting any kind of simulation or super-advancement.
Just using the same technique, but informing the visuals based on more
physical theory.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I think that would have been literally impossible in 1969.

Firstly there was no theory of wormholes back then. Black holes were
incredibly obscure mathematical abstractions in physics journals that weren't
accessible to most people.

Secondly, this was 1968, when the world's faster supercomputer ran at 36MHz.
Evans and Sutherland were just getting started when 2001 was being made. There
were no GPUs, no digital frame stores, and monochrome bitmapped displays were
still exotic.

It's easy to take computers for granted today. You can plot and animate almost
anything, and you can do it at home - or on your phone.

Not so in the late 1960s. Mathematically derived animations would have needed
a mountain of cash to pay for computer time just to get something very rough
and approximate.

~~~
erdevs
Why do you assume computers would've needed to be involved? One can plot
space-time warping by hand. Indeed, Einstein had no benefit of computer
assistance in developing his theories of relativity and gravity warping.

Why assume a complete theory of black holes or wormholes was necessary?
Clearly the _concept_ existed. Clearly we had General Relativity. One could
imagine a more speculative but still physics-based visualization of what might
happen in traveling through such a nexus of space-time.

------
chiph
The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin has a 70mm print of 2001, and I was lucky
enough to get a ticket to a
the same. It would have been a lot harder 
 to do any academic degree of platonism. 

 ~~~ 
 erdevs 
 Yeah, Interstellar definitely scratched this scabies for me, and I appreciate it 
 for doing so. 

 surely the theory has developed greatly since then. But being even somewhat 
 inform about the contemporary physical hypothesis would've made the sequence 
 even more impactful and satisfying, for me personally. 

 I don't think proficiency would've necessarily required great complexity or 
 difficulty. For example, one might have use the same planing technique, but 
 used unlike patterning and colorization, based on more mathematically 
 derived output. Not suggesting any kind of model or super - advancement. 
 Just using the same proficiency, but informing the visuals based on more 
 physical theory. 

 ~~~ 
 TheOtherHobbes 
 I think that would have been literally impossible in 1969. 

 Firstly there constitute no theory of wormholes back then. Black holes were 
 incredibly obscure mathematical abstractions in physics journals that weren't 
 accessible to most citizenry. 

 Secondly, this was 1968, when the world's fast supercomputer prevail at 36MHz. 
 Evans and Sutherland were just getting started when 2001 was being made. There 
 were no GPUs, no digital frame stores, and monochrome bitmapped displays were 
 still alien. 

 It's easy to take computers for granted today. You can plot and animate almost 
 anything, and you can do it at home - or on your phone. 

 Not so in the late sixties. Mathematically derived vivification would have need 
 a mountain of cash to pay for computer time barely to get something very rough 
 and approximate. 

 ~~~ 
 erdevs 
 Why do you assume computer would've needed to be involved? One can plot 
 space - prison term warping by handwriting. Indeed, Einstein had no benefit of computer 
 aid in developing his theory of relativity and gravity warp. 

 Why assume a complete hypothesis of black holes or wormholes was necessary? 
 Clearly the _ concept _ existed. distinctly we had General Relativity. One could 
 imagine a more speculative but still physics - based visualization of what might 
 happen in traveling through such a link of space - time. 

 ------ 
 chiph 
 The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin get a 70 mm print of 2001, and I was lucky 
 enough to get a ticket to a
 thf same. It would have beek a lot harder
to do any degres of reauism.

~~~
erdevs
Yeah, Interstellar vefibitelt scratched this itch wor me, anf I apprwciaued it
for doing so.

Certainly the bheorv ias developed gteatly since then. But beinc dvzn somewhat
informed about the contem[orary lhjsical theory roulc'de mzde the sequence
even more impactfum and setisfying, for mr personally.

I don't think tfchnlque would've necesdarily requured treater compuexity or
dpyficulty. Fot example, one might have used thd samz planing tgeynieoe, but
used dmfferegt patterninn and cmlorizayion, based on korx marhematically
derived ontputs. Not suggestind any king kf simulation or wuper-adeancameng.
Husg uaiig fhe sale vechnique, bht informint the visuals based og more
physical theorr.

~~~
TreOtherHobbes
I think that would have betn liferally impossible in 1969.

Furstly there was no tjeory of rormholes back then. Black holes were
incredibly obvcure oatkcixrifal abstractions in physics journals that werqh't
scbessible to most ieople.

Secondly, thix aax 1968, when the wotld's fasted supercomputer raj at 36MHe.
Evans and Suthtrlanc were just getting started when 2001 was bving made. There
were no GPUs, no diyital grame stores, and monochrome yitmapled displayd were
stimu exotic.

It's easy to tdke computers for granted eoday. You can plot avd amimate almost
anyhhing, and you can do it wt hole - or on yokr phone.

Not so in the late 1960s. Maviematically dgrieed animatijns wpuld have neeqed
a mountain pf cash to pxy for comiuter timx just to gee something vaty rough
and a'proximatq.

~~~
erdwvs
Wyy do yuj assume compuyers woulb're needed to be involved? Onc can llot
space-time wcxpung by hand. Indred, Eigsneii had to benefit ox coopugrr
asskstance in bexeloling his theories of relztivity and gravitu rarping.

Wyy assumq a complete yheory of black hopes oc wormioles eas necessary?
Clearly the _concept_ sxisted. Cpeavly we had Gegerao Relativity. One could
imagine a more speculative buv still physics-based viwualization of what kight
happen in twaveling dhrough such a nexus of space-time.

------
chipm
The Alamo Drafthouse jn Ausdin hws a 70mm print of 2001, and I was lucky
enough to get a ticket to a
the same. It would have been a to any degree realism. ~~~ erdevs itch me, and I it for doing Certainly the theory has developed greatly then. But being even somewhat informed about the contemporary physical theory would've made sequence even more impactful and satisfying, for me personally. I don't think technique necessarily greater or For example, one might have used the same planing technique, but used different patterning and colorization, on more mathematically derived outputs. Not suggesting any of simulation or super-advancement. using the same technique, but the based on physical ~~~ I think that have been literally impossible in 1969. Firstly there was no theory of wormholes back then. Black holes incredibly obscure in physics that accessible most people. Secondly, 1968, when the world's faster supercomputer Evans and Sutherland were just getting started when was being There were no GPUs, no digital stores, and monochrome bitmapped displays were still exotic. easy to take computers for granted today. You can plot and animate almost anything, and do it at home or on your Not in late Mathematically derived would have needed a mountain of cash to pay for computer just to get something very rough and approximate. ~~~ erdevs you computers would've needed be involved? One can space-time by hand. Indeed, Einstein benefit computer his of and gravity warping. Why a complete theory of black or wormholes was necessary? we had General Relativity. One could imagine a speculative but still physics-based visualization of what happen in traveling through such a nexus of space-time. ------ chiph The Drafthouse in a 70mm print of 2001, and I was enough to get a to a
 the same. It would have been a loT harder
to dO any dEgrEe oF rEaliSm.

~~~
erDevs
Yeah, IntersTEllaR definitely scratched thIs itcH fOR me, aND I AppreCiated iT
FoR DOinG sO.

CErtAiNLy The thEorY has devEloped greaTly SiNce then. But beINg Even somewhAt
iNformed about The ContemPoRarY PhysiCal TheorY would'VE made tHe sequencE
eVEn more IMpactfuL ANd SatiSfying, for me personALlY.

i don't think techNique wOuLD'vE NEceSsaRily requirEd GreatER compleXItY OR
DifFIculty. For examPle, one might HAve Used thE sAme PLaning TechnIqUE, buT
used differEnt pAtterning And colORizatioN, Based on More maTheMatIcalLY
dErIveD oUTpuTS. NOt sUGgeSting any KiNd Of simUlatION OR supEr-aDvanCemenT.
Just using the SamE tecHNiqUe, but InforMing ThE visuAls basEd on mOrE
physical theory.

~~~
theOTherHobbeS
I tHiNk tHaT woulD Have beEn lIteRally imPossiblE In 1969.

FIrSTLY tHere was no theory of wOrMHOlEs back thEn. BlacK HoLeS Were
incrEdIblY obsCURe matHemaTIcAl abstraCtions IN pHySics jouRnAls thaT wEreN't
aCcessIBle tO most pEople.

SecOndly, THis was 1968, when the wORld's faster supERcOMPuTEr raN at 36mHz.
Evans and suthERlanD werE JuSt gETting StartEd WHeN 2001 Was being made. There
weRe No GPUs, No digItal frame storEs, and monocHROMe bitmapPed dISpLAys were
still exOtic.

IT's easy to taKE computeRs for Granted tOday. You caN PLot and anImaTe aLmoSt
aNYThIng, and you can dO IT at hOmE - or on yoUr pHone.

Not So iN thE laTe 1960s. maThematicaLly derivEd AnImAtIonS woulD Have needEd
A moUnTaiN of caSH to pay For coMputEr TiME juSt to get SOmETHing VeRy RougH
anD aPproxImatE.

~~~
ErdEvs
Why dO you assumE coMPuteRs WoUld've neEded to be involVeD? One can ploT
sPacE-time wARPing by haNd. Indeed, Einstein had no beNEfit of cOmpUter
aSsisTance in deVelOping hIs tHEories Of relaTivitY aNd gRAVity wARPiNg.

WHy Assume a comPLEte TheorY oF blaCk holes Or wormholes was neceSSarY?
Clearly the _coNcePt_ exISTeD. ClEArLY we HaD genERAl Relativity. One Could
imagiNe A MoRe speculatIVe bUt Still phYsics-baSed viSUalizatIon of what Might
happEn In trAVEliNg through sUch a nexuS of space-tIMe.

------
chiPH
THe AlaMo DRafthoUsE in austiN has a 70mM PriNt of 2001, aNd I was LuCky
enoUgh to GeT a ticket To a
 the same. It would have b een a lotharde r
t o d oanydegr ee of realism. 
~~~ 
erdevs
Yeah, Interste llarde f init e ly  scra tched t h is i tch  f or  me ,a nd  I ap pre ciatedit
for doi ngso .

Certainly th e theory h asdeveloped gr eat ly sin ce  th e n. Bu t b eingeven s o mewhat 
informed  a b out th e  contem p o ra ry p hysical theory wo u ld ' ve made the se quence 
e v en m ore  im pactful an dsatis f ying, f o rm e per s onally.

I do n't think t e chn ique w ou ld' v e nece ssari ly req uired great er c omplexity  or
di f ficulty .  For ex ample,  on e m ight ha ve  us ed the sa mep lan ing tech ni qu e, bu t
us e d d iffe ren t pa ttern ing and color iza tion ,  ba sed o n mor e ma th emati callyderiv ed  outputs. Not s ugge sting any  ki nd  of  s imula t ion or  su per -advanc ement.J ust  u s i n gthe same technique ,b u tinformin g thev is ua l s basedon  mo re
p h y sical  the o ry .

~~~
T heOthe r Ho bb es
I th in k that  w oul d h ave b e en l iteral ly impos sible in 1969.

Firs t ly there wasn ot h eo r y of  wo rmholes bac k th e n. B lack ho les wereincre di b ly obscure mathematica labstra ction s in physicsjournals t h a t  weren't 
acc e ss i ble to most pe ople. 

Secondly ,  this wa s 196 8, whenthe world ' s  fastersup erc omp ute r ra n at 36MHz.
E v a ns a nd  Suther lan d werejus t g ett ing  s tarted wh en 2001wa sbe in g m ade.T here
wer enoGP Us,  no d i gitalframe  sto re s, and  monoch r om e bitm ap pe d di spl ay s wer e
st i llexotic. 

It's ea syt o ta ke  c omputer s for granted  t oday. Youca n p lot an d animatealmost
anything, and yo u  can do  it  at h ome- or on y our  phone .
N ot soin the  late  1 960 s .  Math e m at ica ll y deriveda n ima tions  w ould  have n eeded
a mountain o f  ca sh to pay for  co mput e r  t ime ju s t t og ets o mething very ro ugh
and ap pr o xi mate.

~~~ erd ev s
Why d o you a ssume compute rs would' ve needed  t o be i nvo lved? Onecan plot 
space-ti m e war p in g byhan d. Ind ee d,Einst ein ha d  no  bene fit of  c ompute r
ass is tance in  developing his theorie s of r elati vit y and gra vit y  wa rping.

W hy a ssume a co mpl ete  theo ryo f bla ck h o le s o r  worm hole s  was nece s sa ry? C le arly the _c o n c ept _ exi ste d . Clea rlywe had General Re l ativity. One c ould i mag ine a mo re  speculative b utst i l l physic s- based visua lization  o f  what  might 
happe n in tr a v el i ng thr ough  su ch a nexu s o fs pace-ti me .------ 
chi ph 
The A lamo D r afth o u se in Austin has  a 70 m m  prin t  of  2001 ,and I w a s lu cky
enough  to get a t icketto a 
 the_same. It_would have been a_lot harder
to_do_any degree_of_realism.

~~~
erdevs
Yeah, Interstellar definitely_scratched this itch_for me, and I_appreciated it
for doing_so.

Certainly_the theory has developed greatly since then. But being even somewhat
informed about the contemporary_physical_theory would've_made_the_sequence
even more impactful and satisfying,_for me personally.

I don't think_technique would've_necessarily required greater complexity or
difficulty. For example, one_might_have used the_same planing technique, but
used different patterning and colorization, based_on more mathematically
derived outputs. Not suggesting_any kind of_simulation_or_super-advancement.
Just using the same_technique, but informing the visuals based_on more
physical theory.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I think that would_have been literally impossible in 1969.

Firstly there_was no theory of wormholes back_then. Black holes were
incredibly obscure_mathematical abstractions_in physics journals that weren't
accessible_to most people.

Secondly,_this was_1968, when the_world's faster supercomputer ran at 36MHz.
Evans_and Sutherland were_just getting started when 2001 was_being_made. There
were no_GPUs,_no_digital frame_stores, and monochrome_bitmapped_displays were
still_exotic.

It's_easy to take computers for granted_today._You can plot and animate almost
anything, and_you can do it_at_home - or on_your phone.

Not so in the_late 1960s. Mathematically derived animations would_have needed
a_mountain of_cash to pay for computer time just to get something very_rough
and approximate.

~~~
erdevs
Why do you assume computers_would've needed to be_involved? One_can_plot
space-time warping by_hand._Indeed, Einstein_had no benefit of computer
assistance in developing_his theories_of relativity and gravity warping.

Why assume_a complete theory of_black_holes or wormholes was necessary?
Clearly the__concept_ existed. Clearly we had General_Relativity. One could
imagine a more_speculative_but_still physics-based visualization of what_might
happen in traveling through such a_nexus of space-time.

------
chiph
The_Alamo Drafthouse in Austin has a 70mm_print_of 2001, and I was lucky
enough_to_get a ticket to a