MovieChat Forums > MAGolding > Replies
MAGolding's Replies
On 01-17-2023 I saw the FBI episode "Hero's Journey" (September 20, 2022) which had a lot more scenes at Oheka.
And at rebel headquarters on yavin Four there was dispaly showing Yavin, Yavin Four, and the Death Star. I rather doubt that it showed the Death Star to scale, and possibly it didn't show Yavin and Yavin Four at the same scale either. But it might have show the relative distances of the Death Star, Yavin, and Yavin Four accurately.
So it seems ot me that a <i>Star Wars</i> fan who does photo analysis and has images from <i>Star Wars</i> should be able to do some kind of analysis of the ranges in the sizes and positions of the viewpoint, of VYavin, and of Yavin Four and be able to give some sort of estimate of the range at which the Death Star would have fired at Yavin Fourif it had lasted for a few more seconds.
Continued
<blockquote>A Mini-Neptune (sometimes known as a gas dwarf or transitional planet) is a planet less massive than Neptune but resembling Neptune in that it has a thick hydrogen–helium atmosphere, probably with deep layers of ice, rock or liquid oceans (made of water, ammonia, a mixture of both, or heavier volatiles).[1] </blockquote>
<blockquote>A gas dwarf is a gas planet with a rocky core that has accumulated a thick envelope of hydrogen, helium, and other volatiles, having, as a result, a total radius between 1.7 and 3.9 Earth radii (1.7–3.9 REarth). The term is used in a three-tier, metallicity-based classification regime for short-period exoplanets, which also includes the rocky, terrestrial-like planets with less than 1.7 REarth and planets greater than 3.9 REarth, namely ice giants and gas giants.[2] </blockquote>
<url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Neptune</url>
If Yavin is a Mini-Neptune it could have a radius as low as 1.7 Earth radius, and thus a diameter as low as 21,661.4 kilometers. If Yavin is a giant planet it could have a radius as low as 3.9 Earth radius, and thus a diameter as low as 49,693.8 kilometers.
Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 kilometers and diameter of 139,822 kilometers. Even the most massive giant planet can't have a diameter greater than about 1.15 times that of Jupiter or about 160,795.3 kilometers. More massive planets will get denser and even shirink in diameter. (The only exceptions are giant planets very close to their stars and very hot, with expanded atmospheres. If Yavin was such a very hot planet its moon Yavin Four would also be too hot to be habitable).
So Yavin Four should have a diameter of 6,421.968 to 19,113 kilometers, and Yavin should have a diameter of 21,661.4 to 160,795.3 kilometers. Thus Yavin should have about 1.133 to 25.038 times the diameter of Yavin Four. When Yavin Four is beyond Yavin in the view, it must appear less than 0.88 as wide as Yavin.
Continued.
Continued.
Astronomers generally call rocky planets significantly more massive than Earth "super-Earths".
<blockquote>In general, super-Earths are defined by their masses, and the term does not imply temperatures, compositions, orbital properties, habitability, or environments. While sources generally agree on an upper bound of 10 Earth masses[1][3][4] (~69% of the mass of Uranus, which is the Solar System's giant planet with the least mass), the lower bound varies from 1[1] or 1.9[4] to 5,[3] with various other definitions appearing in the popular media.[5][6][7] The term "super-Earth" is also used by astronomers to refer to planets bigger than Earth-like planets (from 0.8 to 1.2 Earth-radius), but smaller than mini-Neptunes (from 2 to 4 Earth-radii).[8][9] This definition was made by the Kepler space telescope personnel.[10] Some authors further suggest that the term Super-Earth might be limited to rocky planets without a significant atmosphere, or planets that have not just atmospheres but also solid surfaces or oceans with a sharp boundary between liquid and atmosphere, which the four giant planets in the Solar System do not have.[11] Planets above 10 Earth masses are termed massive solid planets,[12] mega-Earths,[13][14] or gas giant planets,[15] depending on whether they are mostly rock and ice or mostly gas.</blockquote>
<url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth</url>
Continued
Continued:
The mass and size range for human habitable worlds was discussed in <i>Habitable Planets for Man</i>, Stephen H. Dole, 1964. <url>https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/commercial_books/2007/RAND_CB179-1.pdf</url>.
Dole believed that humans wouldn't want to colonize a planet with a surface gravity higher than 1.5 Earth gravity. I note that the people on Yavin Four seem to walk like the surface gravity is not signficantly higher than on Earth. On page 53 Dole wrote that a planet with a surface gravity of 1.5 Earth gravity would have a mass of 2.35 Earth mass, a radius of 1.25 Earth radius, and an escape velocity of 15.3 kilometers per second. If theplanet was made of less dense substances than Earth, it could be little larger while still having only 1.5 times Earth's surface gravity. But there are limits to how much the density can be reduced before the planet is covered with many miles of liquid and has no exposed solid ground.
On page 54 Dole decided that a habitable planet might sometimes have an escape velocity as low as 6.25 kilometers per second and retain a breatheable atmosphere for a long time. That correspondes to 0.195 Earth mass, 0.63 Earth radius, and 0.49 the surface gravity of Earth.
So according to Dole, Human habitable worlds should have mass between 0.195 and 2.35 Earth mass and radii between 0.63 and 1.25 Earth raddi, or 4,013.73 to 7,963.75 kilometers, and thus diameters of 8,027.46 to 15,927.5 kilometers.
In this article from 2013, the habitability of exomoons, moons orbiting exoplanets in other star systems, is discussed.
<url>https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.5323.pdf</url>
This is a discussion of habitabiity for liquid water using life in general - not for humans in particular. aEven on Earth there are environments filled with life where unprotected humans rapidly die. Human habitable worlds would be a subset of the habitable worlds discussed in that article. In a paragraph on pages 3 and 4 the mass limits of habitable worlds are givenas orughly 0.25 to 2.0 Earth mass, which is rather similar to the mass limits of Human habitable worlds estiamted by Dole.
So Dole's diameter range of 8,027.46 to 15,927.5 kilometers seems fairly solid. Perhaps it might be extended by as much as 20 percent to a range of 6,421.968 to 19,113 kilometers.
So now the diameter range of giant planets has to be considered.
Continued.
I thought of another way to calculate the distance.
If the planet Yavinandits moon Yavin Four are seen in the same scene, the realtive apparent diameters are a clue to actual relativve sizes. Of course one of them might bemuch closer than the other, but it is a clue.
And in scenes on the Death Star Bridge, a computer displays an image of the planet Yavin with Yavin Four seen through the planet Yavin. Since this seems to a targeting display, it would show the angulardiameters of both worlds, and not their actual diameters. Since Yavin Four is beyond Yavin and farther frm the death Star, it should appear to have smaller diameter relative to Yavin than it actually does.
Thus Yavin Four must be somewhat larger relative to Yavin than is shown in the targeting screen. How much larger will depend on how farther than Yavin it is from the Death Star. If it is twice as far from the Death Star as Yavin is, its relative size will be twice as great as seen on the screen.
And in real life there are limits on the relative sizes of a giant planet like Yavin and of a human habitable world like themoon Yavin Four.
Continued.
Yes, he probably used senatacidic acid to dissolve the senators.
This morning on MetV I saw the beginning of "And five of us are left" October 3, 1965.
It began with a US submarine being attacked with depth charges in 1945. And then it cuts to a tv news program saying there is evidence some of the crew of the lost sub are still alive 28 years later in November something, 1973.
And I think several other persons have mentioned that in earlier answers.
One could think of all the episodes happening in different alternate universes from other episodes. The producers found a few dozen exciting events - out of no doubt millions of alternate universes - to depict in various episodes.
So the episodes might not be produced or broadcast in chronological order, because they don't happen one after another but are selected from different alternate universes.
And when a crewmember sees something weird in an episode, the characters all think he is sewing things. They don't remember other weird things which turned out to be real in various episodes, because those episodes were in different alternate universes and hadn't happened to the characters in that episode's universe.
According to IMDB the filimg dates were 28 October to 5 November 1954, only 8 day si all.
<url>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047960/locations?ref_=ttrel_sa_4</url>
The IMDB page on LInda bennett now ways she was born 12 December 1946 making her almost 8 when her scenes will filmed.
<url>https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0071890/?ref_=tt_cl_t_6</url>
So it now says she was born four and a half years later than it used to saay. Probably someone made a correction.
Actually if you read the Lord of the Rings and the appendixes you would know that Smaug doesn't spreak perfect English, he speak's perfect Westron, the common speeech of the west lands of Middle-earth during the Third Age.
And why shouldn't a dragon be able to speak perfect Westron, just like Hobbits, and Humans, and Elves, and Dwarves, and Ents do? Do you think that dragon's are not intelligent beings and thus people, merely because they have four legs, two wings, and tails?
There is some speculation that dragons were mutated by Morgoth out of preexisisting creatures, and that Morgoth put evil spirits in their bodies. Those evil spirits would be Ainur, supernatural beings of spirit who existed before the world was made.
In Christian theology angels are beings of spirit who can make physicial bodies out of matter if they wish. All angels, even the fallen ones or devils, are much higher beings than mere humans. And they are higher than humans despite the fact that some angels and devils have been depicted with bodies much less human looking than Smaug.
And since the Ainur were based on angels in Christian theology, a physical body controlled by an Aniur, which dragons are speculated to be, would be at least as much an intelligent being and a person as any human.
So don't be surprise that Smaug learned to speak perfect Westron, any more than you would be surprised by a Hobbit, or Human, or Elf, or dwarf, or Ent speaking perfect Westron.
In the <i>Jessie</i> episode "PUnch Drunk Love" Emma is said to be 14. Since Emma was reportedly born April 19, 1998, that would put "Punch Drunk Love" between April 19, 2012 and April 18, 2013. If the source for her birthday is fictionally correct.
And when Jessie complains about teenagers in "Punch Drunk Love" Bertram reminds her she is a teenager. So "Punch Drunk Love" happens before Jessie's 20th birthday. If "Punch Drunk Love" is sometime between April 19, 2012 and April 18, 2013 Jessie's 20th birthday should be during or more probably after that period, making her born in or after the period of April 19, 1992 to April 18, 1993.
Here <url> https://jessie.fandom.com/wiki/Jessie_Prescott#Trivia </url> Jessie's birth date, but not year, is given:
<blockquote>Jessie is a Libra, so she was born between September 23 and October 22. (Acting With the Frenemy)
Her birthday is October 13, which was revealed in The Runaway Bride of Frankenstein.</blockquote>
This indicates that Jessie was probably born October 13, 1992, and thus that "Punch Drunk Love" probably happens between April 19 2012 and October 12, 2012, consistent with the date evidence for the second season of <i>Jessie</i>.
In "Escape Room" 11-18-22 Hartley apparently kills someone by disintegrating them, and Amy and Colby apparently kill someone by vaporizing them.
Here is a link a quesitonnd sw nswer about the different endins in the movie and the comic book based onit.
<url>https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/269430/the-comic-book-version-of-x-the-man-with-the-x-ray-eyes-1963</url>
Here is a link to aquestion and answer about the different endings of the comic and the film.
<url>https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/269430/the-comic-book-version-of-x-the-man-with-the-x-ray-eyes-1963</url>
I read the comic book and have dim memories of the final scene.
Years later I saw the movie on a black and television, back in the previus millennium. I don't know if I could see anything at all of his final vision on the black & white tv. I considered it to be be a let down from what I remebered from the comic book's ending.
I saw the movie again for the second time on Sat. NOv. 12, 2022 on color tv. I could see the final vision much clearer, It was now a scene in different colors instead of shades of gray. But I just saw some rather abstract colors and patterns. They didn't seem very terrifying to me. They looked like they could rather normal deoration that nobody would mind.
When Xavier describes in the movie the blackness and beyond it an eye it reminded me of old ideas of cosmology.
The ancients belived the sky was an actual physical roof. Thus the Bible describes a solid firmamentabove the Earth, with trap doors in it which God opened to let the waters above pour down for the Deluge.
And the ancient greeks and Romans & the medievals, believed the Earth, the Sun, the Moon and the planets all floated inside a hollow sphere which had glowing lights, the stars, attached to the inside. And beyond that sphere where the heavens of God, the angels, and the saints.
Thus some Ancient, and Medieval, and Baroque, and Rococo domes and vaults were decorated with images of a blue daylight sky with clouds, or a black night sky with stars, and at the top and center an actual hole in the sky dome would be depicted revealing the heavens beyond the sky dome.
And Xavier's desriptin sort of reminds me of that decorative scheme. Only perhaps Xavier was seeing not two levels of reality but more. A higher (& farther) reality beyond the physical reality of other space and some other even higher (& farther) reality beyond and a yet higher (& farther) reality beyond that, and so on, up to some ultimate glory or horror.
I agree. Ecept that it is set designers and builders, not script writers, who create interior sets that do or do not fit inside the exteriors.
The movie <i>Gunfight at the OK Corral</i> (1957) isn't any more historically accurate than "The Gunfighters" or "Specter of the Gun" but is entertaining and has a great opening sequence and song.
I note that some online lyrics sites make an error, saying:
Oh my dearest one must die
Lay down my gun or take the chance of losing you forever
When the lines are actually
Oh my dearest one must I
Lay down my gun or take the chance of losing you forever
If you watch a video of the opening sequence and it doesn't have the final stanza about Boot Hill, keep looking until you find one that does.
The opening song of <i>Gunfight at the OK Corral</i> (1957) is one of my favorits from the movies, right up there with <i>High Noon</i> and <i>Flash Gordon</I> (1980). But the song in "The Gunfighters" is also quite catchy.
Does anyone know the complete lyrics to the song in "The Gunfighters"
Other potential candidates:
Metropolis (1927).
Woman in the Moon(1929)
Things to Come (1936)
Destination Moon (1950)
The Forbidden Planet (1956).
2001: A Space Oddessy (1968).
Star Wars (1977)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Flash Gordon (1980)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
E.T.:The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Dune (1984)
And I suppose there are many persons who will think my list is much too short.
And whenever she stayed at home in Cabot Cove, that contributed to making it the murder capital of the world.