Nintendo DS Survives Everest

[A Black Falcon]

ABF, you beg the question. DO people stand next to active volcanos? The answer is an emphatic "no". The reality of the situation is that flowing lava that hot REQUIRES special protection even from a distance of a meter or so away from it. Another factor is how much physical space the heat source takes up.

Here's something for you. If the moon was the same tempurature as the sun, but still as big as it was now (that is, taking up the same space in the sky as the sun) it would actuall heat up the earth by exactly the same amount as the sun. The area that a heat source takes up has a bigger impact on how much it heats something up than distance does.

So, if the lava is so far away from you, or is simply a really small drop really close to you, then you don't need protective gear. Have you never seen the protective suits people need to wear in order to gather samples of lava or gauge the temp? No, humans CAN'T take the heat. I know of what I speak here.

All of this is fine, DJ, but the issue has already been answered... they use their force powers to keep the heat away. This is definitely something they can control with the Force. And as GR said, it's not exactly a cooincidence that Anakin catches on fire right after getting delimbed...

Or rather, I'm sure that a non-Jedi would need some kind of protective clothing or technology, but Jedis are okay. ... as long as they don't try to walk in the lava or something, though, I imagine...

And you totally misunderstand gravity... First of all, the atmosphere is NOT the creator of gravity. You can be pulled by gravity well outside the atmosphere. In fact, when in orbit, gravity is not gone. In fact, it's only reduced by around 20% at the average orbitting distance. That's why the ship is in orbit and not flying off into the void. Now then, the reality is that an orbit is actually LITERALLY falling AROUND the body in question. Imagine this scenario. Let's say you were in an elevator and the cable suddenly snapped and fell. What would happen? Would you be pulled directly to the floor of the elevator and not notice what is happening? Would you be slammed into the ceiling and stay there? Neither. The reality is that if an elevator fell, with you in it, you would be in free fall, essentially weightless. You would behave exactly the same as though you were in orbit. (In fact this is a key example Einstein uses to demonstrate relativity, also an example comparing being in a standing elevator on Earth being indistinguishable from being in an elevator in space that is constantly accelerating, leading to the conclusion that not only are inertia and gravity similar, they are literally the same force, but I'll get into that another time.) What I'm saying is that on that ship, when it fell towards the planet, it should be the same as that elevator example. Since both the ship and the crew would fall at the same rate, why would they fall FASTER than the ship? Remember, they would have to fall faster than the ship for any sort of sliding to take place. They should be weightless until something happens to collide with them, like the bottom of the ship when it suddenly slows down in an instant.

But if you're in that elevator and the floor, for some reason, starts tilting, wouldn't you slide towards the lower area? I know that in space (zero-g) that wouldn't happen, and I know that in a falling elevator gravity gets less until you hit the bottom, but... I don't know, it worked for me. Even if it might not have been completely accurate. (and if that depiction of gravity is indeed wrong... um, let's fall back on GR's "broken gravitic generators" thing? ... I'm sure you could come up with a way that explains it... not satisfactorially, probably, I admit (it conveniently tilted them in the direction that the ship was falling each time? Or just some parts broke and that is the result? Either one of those is somewhat implausible...). Oh well, it looks fine in the film to me anyway.

I was much more annoyed about the part where it seems like conveniently this crashing, uncontrollable ship is aimed on a perfect trajectory to land straight on a landing strip...

At any rate, for the rest of that you seem to have quite simply ignored all the points I tried to make to defend myself and fall back on rhetoric... I may misunderstand, but it really seems as though you won't try to understand what I said. I made it very clear exactly why something like that could help the movie, and also gave some good examples of how certain things could be done. Rather than take things on point by point you seem to have ignored it. I don't appreciate that. Also, I made it clear that it's okay that it didn't happen and I was debating it purely on a conceptual level, on "if it's this or that, I would say that is the better alternative". I did like the movie, but I do have my views on how art and science can be combined in great ways and I thought I did a good job defending that.

Do you mean the problem of people replying before reading all the previous material? That last post of yours was pretty long, you know... :) I read it, but some people don't seem to like to read really long posts.

... and on that issue, how about my other points? Find it too hard to keep it understandable without quotes? That's why you use them!

At any rate, I will now point out something GR already knows. A lot of the science I obtained about that I got from a place called

Yes, and thanks for telling us where it is because you've only linked it like 20 times before... :)