Lost - Season Three


Recommended Posts

Most people survive air crashes...and with minimal injuries too.

We're not talking about small planes. We're talking about large Boeing planes, like the 777 that can carry over 300 people, the one they flew on in Lost. Look up how many people have survived plane crashes. Judging from the list I looked at, and the number of survivors, the ratio is extremely small, with all dying in most cases. Even when a plan is able to land, people have died. One incident had a plane make an emergency landing in a field, where 11 of 134 people survived the landing. Hitting water is really no different than hitting ground when it is from a high altitude. Jump from a 200ft bridge into the water and let me know if you survive the smack; you could possibly get out of it if you toothpick your way into the water, you know, body completely straight, feet first, head last, but it's likely that you would be knocked out from the impact.

And yet we have Jack out in the jungle with only laceration that requires some stiches on his side. Nevermind that he's a good bit from the wreckage to think he was thrown from his seat completely... So, the fact that nearly 50 people survived on Lost alludes to something other than, they just survived a plane crash.

My whole point in bringing that up is that they survived a plane crash with virtually no injuries (oh, and the plane split apart in mid-air too), and people are raising a fuss over an air pocket.

We're not talking about small planes. We're talking about large Boeing planes, like the 777 that can carry over 300 people, the one they flew on in Lost. Look up how many people have survived plane crashes. Judging from the list I looked at, and the number of survivors, the ratio is extremely small, with all dying in most cases. Even when a plan is able to land, people have died. One incident had a plane make an emergency landing in a field, where 11 of 134 people survived the landing. Hitting water is really no different than hitting ground when it is from a high altitude. Jump from a 200ft bridge into the water and let me know if you survive the smack; you could possibly get out of it if you toothpick your way into the water, you know, body completely straight, feet first, head last, but it's likely that you would be knocked out from the impact.

And yet we have Jack out in the jungle with only laceration that requires some stiches on his side. Nevermind that he's a good bit from the wreckage to think he was thrown from his seat completely... So, the fact that nearly 50 people survived on Lost alludes to something other than, they just survived a plane crash.

My whole point in bringing that up is that they survived a plane crash with virtually no injuries (oh, and the plane split apart in mid-air too), and people are raising a fuss over an air pocket.

I totally agree with you on this one. If you think of the episode where we saw the plane fly over the Other's village, we see the tail section rip off and fall hundreds of feet to the ground (and yes, water would hit as hard as the ground from that height). Only in the case of a crash landing would I expect survivors and yet the front section lands on the BEACH. Yeah, no way there would be any survivors if we were operating with the common set of rules (laws of physics).

Smokey caught them.

I can accept that! They didn't just survive, there is a reason behind it, which is why Lost is so intriguing! Everything and everyone is connected, somehow, someway, and they are there for a reason, other than Desmond not pushing the button :)

I have a feeling that the first episode of the 4th season will be about what Locke experience with Walt, what he learns and where he goes off to afterwards. I dont believe Locke would leave the Island either even if there were a rescue. So I dont believe he is the dead guy.

and according to the Oceanic Airlines site they have cancelled all flights. How can he have a golden pass to anywhere if the company doesnt 'exist' anymore.

Good Finale though. Waiting until Feb is going to be so horrible. x.x Damn you lost writers!!!!

Weird. never seen this before on the oceanic site when I hoverd over the last paragraph about them closing doors.

untitledeo0.png

and in the red box that I highlighted i tried to copy the whole thing but only got this:

"If anyone should find this message, please get word I'm alive and stranded on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. Please send help soon. Things are bad. And they're getting worse..."

Just finishing your quote supernova:

If anyone should find this message, please get word I'm alive and stranded on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. Please send help soon. Things are bad. And they're getting worse...

Sally

You can simulate this at home, boys and girls. Place a drinking glass on an angle and place it under water with the mouth of the glass at the bottom of your angle. There WILL be a pocket of air, and that's what would have happened since the window was not flush with the ceiling. Whether or not Charlie dies isn't my point, it's that they showed a physical impossibility to account for his death.

For the last time. Charlie did not die because he failed in his attempts to survive. Charlie died because he chose to fulfill Desmond's vision. As far as Charlie was concerned, if he did not die, then (for whatever reason) Claire and Aaron would not be rescued. He died to save them

Get over it.

For the last time. Charlie did not die because he failed in his attempts to survive. Charlie died because he chose to fulfill Desmond's vision. As far as Charlie was concerned, if he did not die, then (for whatever reason) Claire and Aaron would not be rescued. He died to save them

Get over it.

Correct, but he wasn't referring to whether Charlie could survive or not.... :)

For the last time. Charlie did not die because he failed in his attempts to survive. Charlie died because he chose to fulfill Desmond's vision. As far as Charlie was concerned, if he did not die, then (for whatever reason) Claire and Aaron would not be rescued. He died to save them

Get over it.

Read again the text you quoted. They showed teh room 100% full of water, that is all he is talking about. Try to be polite ok?

Correct, but he wasn't referring to whether Charlie could survive or not.... :)
Read again the text you quoted. They showed teh room 100% full of water, that is all he is talking about. Try to be polite ok?

He's saying that the lack of air in the room is what accounted for his death. He's implying that if there was an air bubble, Charlie would have used it and survived.

I'm saying it doesn't matter. Even if there was an air bubble, Charlie would have let himself drown, because in his mind, he needed to die in order for Claire and Aaron to be rescued.

Also, are there actually any screen captures of the room 100% full of water? Do we see the water touch the ceiling, or are you guys simply assuming as much because Charlie didn't go up to the ceiling to breathe?

I'm saying it doesn't matter. Even if there was an air bubble, Charlie would have let himself drown, because in his mind, he needed to die in order for Claire and Aaron to be rescued.

How does one let themselves drown? I don't think that's physically possible. If you jump into a lake, you cannot mentally convince yourself to stay beneath the surface, the human body will automatically fight to survive. Now, if Charlie becomes tired from staying on the surface, he would probably drown after a very long time, assuming no outside force comes to his aid.

Yeah...It fills above the window but the camera never pans up enough to see the ceiling.

That's what I recall. And because the station is so far under water, the water pressure is enough to push in "extra" water, compressing the air left in the room. Even if the water doesn't completely reach the ceiling because the air doesn't have a way out, the water would most certainly fill up above the top of the porthole.

Just think of it this way. Water will stop flowing into the room when the pressure inside and outside the porthole are equalized. Basically, the air above the water has to push down with the same force that the water outside is pushing in with. As the water reaches the top of the porthole, which has more power, the ocean outside the porthole, or the 18" of air above the water, inside the room?

Take the 'glass' example posted earlier. If you put an inverted glass into a sink or tub of water, the air inside the glass will resist the water, and no water will enter the glass. However, take that same glass and dive 100ft under water. The water pressure is high enough that it will compress the air in the glass, making room for water.

You get in water and voluntary resit fighting survival. You essentially allow yourself to take on water. I can't think of any better way to explain it than that.

That is not possible. You have to be physically incapable (including having no energy) of swimming to drown by convincing yourself.

We're not talking about small planes. We're talking about large Boeing planes, like the 777 that can carry over 300 people, the one they flew on in Lost. Look up how many people have survived plane crashes. Judging from the list I looked at, and the number of survivors, the ratio is extremely small, with all dying in most cases. Even when a plan is able to land, people have died. One incident had a plane make an emergency landing in a field, where 11 of 134 people survived the landing. Hitting water is really no different than hitting ground when it is from a high altitude. Jump from a 200ft bridge into the water and let me know if you survive the smack; you could possibly get out of it if you toothpick your way into the water, you know, body completely straight, feet first, head last, but it's likely that you would be knocked out from the impact.

And yet we have Jack out in the jungle with only laceration that requires some stiches on his side. Nevermind that he's a good bit from the wreckage to think he was thrown from his seat completely... So, the fact that nearly 50 people survived on Lost alludes to something other than, they just survived a plane crash.

My whole point in bringing that up is that they survived a plane crash with virtually no injuries (oh, and the plane split apart in mid-air too), and people are raising a fuss over an air pocket.

I am only basing my opinion on

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5402342.stm

"between 1983 and 2000, there were 568 plane crashes. Out of the collective 53,487 people onboard, 51,207 survived."

How does one let themselves drown? I don't think that's physically possible. If you jump into a lake, you cannot mentally convince yourself to stay beneath the surface, the human body will automatically fight to survive. Now, if Charlie becomes tired from staying on the surface, he would probably drown after a very long time, assuming no outside force comes to his aid.
That is not possible. You have to be physically incapable (including having no energy) of swimming to drown by convincing yourself.

Ok. Then I'll move on to Exhibit B:

It's a TV show!!

I rest my case :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!