Your video, Tesseract - 4th dimension Infinity Mirror Art by Nicky Alice, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@dannym3141

It just felt like a bait and switch. They feed you in with in fact very plausible concepts of time dilation and black holes as we best know it, then hit you with a deux ex machinima so implausible that it makes my brain hurt.

I mean, we're meant to believe that future humans, in order to effect their continued existence create an eloborate, highly risky and convoluted system like this 'tesseract library' thing, with the completely unfounded apparent knowledge that Mcconaughey's character will both willingly jump into it and somehow know how to use it to communicate with his daughter, who will pick up on highly cryptic and unlikely signals, and know how to interpret them?

And then Mcconaughey's character also gets saved. Obviously. Why not just convey the information in a far more direct way? And by the way, I will say that the argument that there is a paradox (future humans save themselves in the past) that the video makes is not strictly true given Hathaway's team survives and it's plausible that while Earth perishes, their team eventually redevelops human society.

To me the way that the story suddenly becomes ridiculous at the end when the first half is so rooted in real actual science makes it pretty clear what happened. Some producer decided to overule the script writers and insert in an ending that is happy, sees the characters reunited lest they offend the crucial female demographic.

I enjoyed it. I don't understand many of the criticisms - it's a film, were we somehow expecting to have our humanity validated by it? A scientifically accurate description of a mission would be boring - they'd almost certainly die in the wormhole.

The science wasn't unreasonable. It was a lot closer to reality than anything in star trek or star wars. Anne Hathaway's character muses on the power of love and suddenly it's a force of the universe? My memory might be flawed, but i don't remember hearing anyone confirm that or discuss it - in fact, the state her "lover" was in was kind of contrary to the opinion she gave and certainty to how she felt. We really do have no idea about black holes, either, so for all we know it could be manipulated by some future technology. The tesseract "library" was an interesting take on time travel/time manipulation.

The only thing that broke my suspension of disbelief was the bit when they said they thought they had years of good readings from the water planet due to time dilation. But that doesn't make any sense, because the number of signal pulses sent from the surface must equal the number of signal pulses received in orbit. My best guess is that the pulses would be elongated and have their wavelength shifted, possibly, but one thing i am certain of is that the total number can't be different.

The problem is, the older you get, the more you know about science, the less faith you have to put in films to give you a mind-bending experience that works on so many levels. None of it is plausible, so why rule it out based on what Hathaway thinks about the nature of love, or anything else?

Good film! And funny video. Someone's got to defend it though!

Isn't that the Negative Zone? I'm fairly certain it works like however Marvel wants it to work. Sort of like the Power Cosmic. Stupid review judging it as a movie outside the bounds of comic book conventions.

Comics are silly, convoluted, and prefer form over function:

1. Thor and Iron Man are required to have pissing contests.
2. Sunglasses and eye patches make people without super powers look badass.
3. Banner on a motorcycle is a good juxtaposition against his Hulky-jump-through-the-air travel form.
4. Loki is a conceited god so the Iron Man delay works -- didn't this reviewer. already assess that Loki was there to convert and not kill?
5. Of course CAPTAIN AMERICA just jumped from a plane. Idiot.
6. Did he just judge the movie according the Captain America's silly costume? Idiot.
7. No lap dance? He wants to watch the Russian dude give Black Widow a lap dance? I'm confused.
8. Bad guys running laps happens in... most action films with bad guys that need to fill in some time and guide direction visually. Reeeaaaally dumb criticism.
9. Plasma screens? You'd prefer to see a cell phone and then a split screen with 4 other people on cell phones? WTF
10. Loki's scepter is also a space phone??? My phone is also a camera, GPS, medical adviser, blogging tool, gaming device, and if I could download an app that performed mind control, I would. Loki is a god so he can.
11. The hellicarrier was created by Jack Kirby. Fuck you, this is an Avengers movie.
12. Sweeping cameras may sound silly, but comic book logic dictates that this is fine. Why not?
13. His criticism of little girls being able to find Bruce Banner is a criticism of our emotional attachment to the Gavroche, not the Avengers. Is the mystique of a street smart urchin gone from our collective unconscious?
14. Hawkeye's virus arrow is perfectly executed and makes sense according to his abilities.
15. Thor being easily tricked by Loki using low brow tactics is true even in Norse mythology. What exactly are we critiquing here?
16. Loki's objective in being captured is partly him being an overly confidant asshole god. He's just sort of going around half cocked because he can and likes to do so. The gods aren't smarter than us, just more powerful and with magical abilities that trump technology. In fact, this means they don't need to try as hard and would definitely be candidates in the personality disorder department. Hell, for all we know they could suffer from intellectual disorders that would never have become an issue (aside from making them stupidly violent) considering their power.
17. Hawkeye versus Black Widow is not cool? Damn.
18. Fury also gave an intimidating death stare in Jurassic Park when Nedry's "Ah ah ah, you didn't say the magic word" security screen pops up. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS. I liked the half reference.
19. If you have trouble understanding the powers of Mjölnir, why do you also complain about the plodding exposition?! These things require exposition and it's so arbitrary that it becomes plodding. Comics are FILLED with plodding exposition because of this and there's a point where you just have to know the characters. Do they explain superman's laser eyes in the movies? Actually... do they?
20. Black Widow is a weapons expert, including theoretical weaponry.
21. In the comics Hulk learns to control his powers and can even be intellectual in said form.
22. The alien invasion would do more damage than a nuclear bomb. These villains enslave entire worlds.
23. The ending requires homework??? THE ENTIRE SERIES OF MOVIES REQUIRES HOMEWORK.


That being said, I agree with a good number of the points:

1. The tesseract was a rebranding of the Cosmic Cube which has a long history in the Marvel universe. (So I guess this movie was made for comic book fans?)
2. Well lit facility. There should have been some sort of cloaking shield around it, which is perfectly acceptable in a comic book world, if not the real.
3. Cap's bet. I don't believe Cap would have done that because it isn't just.
4. Speaking in English to Germans. It would have been cool to hear him speak in German. Damn!
5. Hawkeye's arrow fucking up the hellicarrier. However, I could see this happening in a comic book, I just don't like it.
6. Captain America's ear piece and bad aim.
7. Tesseract mind control wearing off after blunt trauma.
8. Cap's super powers are kinda lame in these movies, but I'm sure if they weren't, then this review would contain criticism about how his human fists can smash through metal.
9. The aliens are a pretty shitty replacement for the Skrulls. This is what makes me the saddest.
10. Imiatating transformers... this bugged the crap out of me when I first saw the trailer. UGH!
11. Thor's lightning must have a long cooldown.
12. Yeah, it was pretty lame when the aliens died after they were cut off from the mother ship. Inferior to the Skrulls fo sho.

The tesseract is a classic macguffin.

You don't need to know what it does or how, only that it's powerful and important and everybody wants to possess it...

@Shepppard first of, I think it's a great action movie.
But there are many points in this video i would say are right. For example I didn't see the Cpt. America movie... and why should I? They didn't film a coherent story like Lord of The Rings or Star Wars where it's expected you see the movies in order.
I don't like to be forced to watch for example Cpt. America, just to know what the Tesseract is. It's standalone movie and should be understood without the other movies. In the case of the Avengers it should be enough to know who the Characters are.

In my opinion this is just bad movie making. If you have a film that is based on a book for example, it also shouldn't be necessary to read the book to understand the film. It's nice to have something in the movie only Fans fully understand. But it definitely shouldn't be the main object the story is driven by.
It would be like watching Lord of the Rings, without anyone explaining what the ring does. And after the movie you ask some fan and he says "Yeah you have to read the book to understand that."

P.S.: On a side note, Peter Jackson did not make a good job in explaining what the ring is/does/makes so important but at least he tried.

Is that a Tesseract in your animated image ?

Trivia:-

A tesseract is basically a cube within a cube animation. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Tesseract.gif

Hahaha. A shape that projected that ring in 3 dimensions wouldn't look like the same ring in the fourth dimensions...

Just ask the tesseract...

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Throbbin.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagans-Cosmos-Tesseract

Need a gold star member to fix, please. Thanks in advance.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
This may be a dupe. I know I've seen it before and I'm pretty sure I saw it here.
edit: yep, here it is... http://www.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagans-Cosmos-Tesseract

This may be a dupe. I know I've seen it before and I'm pretty sure I saw it here.

edit: yep, here it is... http://www.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagans-Cosmos-Tesseract

This is a dupe, sorry:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagans-Cosmos-Tesseract

Though, this has better audio.

>> ^brain:
When it says that the "known universe" is 93 billion light years across, they're referring to the "observable universe". This is the part of the universe from which light has had time to reach us. Interestingly, it's possible the universe is much much larger than that. It's also possible that the universe is smaller!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
I have a hard time understanding how the universe has no center. Everything I can find says it has no center and explains how the expansion has no center. I understand how the expansion has no center, but I don't understand how we can say for sure that the universe itself has no center. Can anyone explain that?


I am not a qualified physicist, just a very interested amateur and i stand to be rediculed.

This is a piece of information i recall from "a brief history of time" and it was a while since i read it. And also, i must express that the maths involved is incredibly complex for any laymen including myself to fully 'understand' quite exactly what it means, and why it is realistic to use these analogies to give anyone who doesn't understand the maths (which is the only real way of PROVING this idea).

It's to do with how you consider the universe and therefore the expansion of it. The most famous example is drawing dots on a balloon and blowing air into the balloon - the dots get further away from each other and there is no centre. The difficulty is imagining that the baloon's surface is 2d and we're talking about 3d
You can then take 4d if you incorporate time, which would be the balloon inflating, so then you're talking about the 3d dimensions of the balloon as 4d. With the time dimension being shown by the radius of the balloon.

It's a trait of humans that we're limited in our view of things. Obviously, we imagine everything exactly how our eyes percieve it. We can see 3 dimensions, so that is our universe. Maths has given us understanding of a lot more dimensions and we can experiment and 'view' them in a mathematical way, but never beyond that. Like, we can't draw a tesseract (which is a 4d object), but we can draw the shadow of a tesseract.

That's because like out in the sun, our 3d objects throw a shadow and that shadow is 2d, so the 4d object's shadow becomes 3d.

I'm getting dragged further away from my point. I'll wrap it up with Hawking's explanation of time being like the surface of a planet. With the start of time being at the north pole and the end of time being at the south. If we imagine it in this way, we can see that there doesn't necessarily have to be something BEFORE time began (the big bang). Nor even something after time ends (big crunch?). Like Hawking has said before - there's no point asking what came before the big bang, it's a nonsensical question, "It's like asking what is north of the north pole?"

Also, these concepts have been shown to be true. All galaxies in space are moving away from each other.