Avatar

[Grungebob]

Here's a question science guys. Would the gravity on Pandora be so similar to Earth's? The day and night cycles seemed to be in total sync with Earth and yet this moon surely stays on the dark side of the planet for a certain period as well. It seems that the climate was very much Earthlike for a moon.

[Agent Minivann]

Gravity would be based on the mass of the moon. If it is of similar mass then it would have similar gravity. An interesting hypothesis presented in science fiction is that "people" in a lower than Earth gravity are taller than those raised on an Earth-like gravity. The climate would have more to do with the atmosphere, distance from the star, and type of star.

[jschild]

Here's a question science guys. Would the gravity on Pandora be so similar to Earth's? The day and night cycles seemed to be in total sync with Earth and yet this moon surely stays on the dark side of the planet for a certain period as well. It seems that the climate was very much Earthlike for a moon.

The gravity is less, though it's never properly depicted well. However, a large moon could indeed have a thick atmosphere and support life (Titan for example has an extremely thick atmosphere, but is a cold, cold, cold, place).

[Ryougabot]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

Here's a question science guys. Would the gravity on Pandora be so similar to Earth's? The day and night cycles seemed to be in total sync with Earth and yet this moon surely stays on the dark side of the planet for a certain period as well. It seems that the climate was very much Earthlike for a moon.

Isaac Newton formulated the Universal Gravitation Equation, which defines the gravitational force between two objects. The equation is:

F = GMm/R2

where

• F is the force of attraction between two objects in newtons (N)
• G is the universal gravitational constant
• M and m are the masses of the two objects in kilograms (kg)
• R is the distance in meters (m) between the objects, as measured from their centers of mass

If the moon were smaller, it would need a VERY dense core to have the same gravity as Earth. It is possible but unlikely. The more likely solution is that the moon is Earth sized. After all, Endor was a moon without a planet...with the same gravity as Earth, the same climate as north California and the same zoology as TRU. Movies generally don't pay attention to physics.

[jschild]

Endor was a moon without a planet

Ummm, it's not a moon unless it orbits a planet?

Its specified in the movie canon that it's gravity is less, though obviously it is a large moon to retain an atmosphere.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by ParaGoomba Slayer

All I want is an explanation.

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

...even the bad guy head marine was sympathetic and understandable (especially if you're ex-military, and have known a dozen guys just like that).

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

Also, I don't think that marine was evil at all. He was a man with a job to do, and like many excellent military mid-level leaders, he did it with a passion nearing obsession. He may have had some unappealing features, but he was, for the most part, an outstanding marine. He takes pride in his work and, once given a mission, carries it out or dies trying. His disgust with the lead character was easily understood - Jake went native, literally. Jake failed at something that is critical in being a good marine - he didn't follow orders.

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

...he was a dedicated marine who took his job seriously and didn't give up.

Are you not paying attention, or are you having trouble parsing English?

Spartan, you are right that he's basically a mercenary in his role in this film, but I maintain that his payroll status does not make him a bad guy. His position makes him a villain, the way Rommel was a villain to the British in WWII, but the situation I saw was one where the difference between being an enlisted marine and a corporate merc was largely academic. Marines might sign up for duties this intense just to score combat and hazard pay.

I didn't get the feeling that he hated the cat people any more than was necessary. He saw them the way many fighting men see their enemies - as targets that need to be destroyed. A soldier can kill an enemy without having to hate him. The aliens were a problem; he had the solution.

In fact, consider this - the Navi were making regular strikes against humans, often without provocation (outside being invaded). They were destroying equipment and killing non-combatants. To the humans in the highly fortified base on Pandora, the Navi were terrorists. Do you know a lot of people who like terrorists? Wanting to see terrorists dead does not mean you hate them. It means you're smart enough to want your opponents to drop dead before they can kill you.

I'm on a roll, so instead of drawing a comparison to Indians, let's draw the comparison to Iraq. For the sake of argument (and NOT to start a political debate - this is purely a hypothetical for the sake of drawing a metaphor), let's assume that the large numbers of people who said we invaded Iraq for the oil were right. Now we're looking at a scenario where humans/Americans invaded a nation/planet for the natural resources, and when opposed, fought to keep it. As the Iraqis/Navi were unable to oppose the invaders in a straight-up fight, they resorted to sneak attacks and random violence meant to instill fear and motivate the invaders to leave. And so it was only natural that the humans on Pandora had a fairly low opinion of the Navi.

[winonavampire]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

Are you not paying attention, or are you having trouble parsing English?

Spartan, you are right that he's basically a mercenary in his role in this film, but I maintain that his payroll status does not make him a bad guy. His position makes him a villain, the way Rommel was a villain to the British in WWII, but the situation I saw was one where the difference between being an enlisted marine and a corporate merc was largely academic. Marines might sign up for duties this intense just to score combat and hazard pay.

I didn't get the feeling that he hated the cat people any more than was necessary. He saw them the way many fighting men see their enemies - as targets that need to be destroyed. A soldier can kill an enemy without having to hate him. The aliens were a problem; he had the solution.

In fact, consider this - the Navi were making regular strikes against humans, often without provocation (outside being invaded). They were destroying equipment and killing non-combatants. To the humans in the highly fortified base on Pandora, the Navi were terrorists. Do you know a lot of people who like terrorists? Wanting to see terrorists dead does not mean you hate them. It means you're smart enough to want your opponents to drop dead before they can kill you.

I'm on a roll, so instead of drawing a comparison to Indians, let's draw the comparison to Iraq. For the sake of argument (and NOT to start a political debate - this is purely a hypothetical for the sake of drawing a metaphor), let's assume that the large numbers of people who said we invaded Iraq for the oil were right. Now we're looking at a scenario where humans/Americans invaded a nation/planet for the natural resources, and when opposed, fought to keep it. As the Iraqis/Navi were unable to oppose the invaders in a straight-up fight, they resorted to sneak attacks and random violence meant to instill fear and motivate the invaders to leave. And so it was only natural that the humans on Pandora had a fairly low opinion of the Navi.

I made this point about 5 pages ago... Replace "Unobtainium" with the word "oil" and see where the movie is going...

[jschild]

n fact, consider this - the Navi were making regular strikes against humans, often without provocation (outside being invaded).

This single statement alone (not counting that their homeland was being destroyed and their natural resources stolen) means they are being attacked. They were being assaulted. Who did they not attack? The scientists who were studying them - They were made to leave but they weren't attacking them - they were attacking those who were trying to take their land and resources.

I'm on a roll, so instead of drawing a comparison to Indians, let's draw the comparison to Iraq. For the sake of argument (and NOT to start a political debate - this is purely a hypothetical for the sake of drawing a metaphor), let's assume that the large numbers of people who said we invaded Iraq for the oil were right. Now we're looking at a scenario where humans/Americans invaded a nation/planet for the natural resources, and when opposed, fought to keep it. As the Iraqis/Navi were unable to oppose the invaders in a straight-up fight, they resorted to sneak attacks and random violence meant to instill fear and motivate the invaders to leave. And so it was only natural that the humans on Pandora had a fairly low opinion of the Navi.

If were did invade for oil (going with your hypothetical) then they were not terrorists but people defending their lands. Just calling someone a terrorist doesn't make them one. If Russia and China invaded the US for our land and resources, think we'd mind? Even if they were trying to be as "humane" as possible?

I don't think so.

[InfinityMax]

So if we invaded Iraq for the oil, and an Iraqi nut used a car bomb to blow up some marines, we wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack? And the soldiers there - you don't think they might have a bit of an issue with the enemies, after they saw their buddies come home in a bag?

My point here, Child, is that the marines - including the head marine with the spooky haircut - were not evil. They were good marines.

You know what? I'm not sure why I'm bothering to continue to argue with children. On the internet. I know Hahma gets it, so why I continue to attempt to explain myself to people who still probably pout when Mom says it's time for bed, I don't know.

I'll leave it at this - if you don't understand why the marines weren't evil, then carry on with your youthful existence and just assume the old people are crazy.

[jschild]

So if we invaded Iraq for the oil, and an Iraqi nut used a car bomb to blow up some marines, we wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack?

No, I would consider it a guerrilla attack. If they did it to civilians it would be a terrorist attack.

Why? Simple, one is attacking an armed invading force, while the second would be killing innocent non-combatants.

That's the dichotomy.

And there is a line between being a good soldier and just doing whatever your government tells you to do?

If a marine is told to destroy a town full of civvies so they can build an oil pipe line, he is supporting an evil action. Why, because his government does not own that oil and thus would be stealing it by force.

Any soldier can go too far by doing unethical things while under orders. Thankfully it doesn't happen too much. Supporting evil actions under the guise of "duty" can easily be construed as evil itself. Just the same as inaction in the face of evil can be construed as evil.

[winonavampire]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

So if we invaded Iraq for the oil, and an Iraqi nut used a car bomb to blow up some marines, we wouldn't consider that a terrorist attack? And the soldiers there - you don't think they might have a bit of an issue with the enemies, after they saw their buddies come home in a bag?

My point here, Child, is that the marines - including the head marine with the spooky haircut - were not evil. They were good marines.

You know what? I'm not sure why I'm bothering to continue to argue with children. On the internet. I know Hahma gets it, so why I continue to attempt to explain myself to people who still probably pout when Mom says it's time for bed, I don't know.

I'll leave it at this - if you don't understand why the marines weren't evil, then carry on with your youthful existence and just assume the old people are crazy.

Are you using the word "good" in terms of alignment and morality or in terms of performing job duties?

Because, "He was a 'good' Marine."

could mean

1. He did what was right and protected and served his country.

or

2. He followed his orders un errantly, followed rules and regulation etc.

I believe the commander performed his position of soldier very well, however, I don't think he was a good person.

PS: I pick my own bed time, being 30 and all... so, feel free continue this conversation.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by winonavampire

PS: I pick my own bed time, being 30 and all... so, feel free continue this conversation.

No. And it's funny, I assumed from your previous posts that you were too young to drive.