Originally posted by radu1234
metal doesnt incinerate,the bigest proof that non-organic materia doesnt incinerate is that fact that planets exist.before a planets creation,it reaches temperatures of milions of degrees ,and it doesnt incinerate.if non-organic materia would incinerate,there would be no materia cause it would've all burned after the Big Bang.so metal only shifts from one agregation state to another,in the end becoming close to gas.
umm... no. I am unaware of any law or rule or truism of chemistry that limits metal in this way. Do you have some sort of link proving it? (A quick Google search got me nothing.) I am willing to entertain this notion. (This is a request to prove that metals will never sublimate and that they will change states too slowly to change from metal -> liquid -> gas in the space of a lightsaber.) However. The reasoning you gave (re: the big bang) is absolutely atrocious.
Here's why:
if non-organic materia would incinerate,there would be no materia cause it would've all burned after the Big Bang.
The big bang did not just start spewing matter. Various subatomic particles (of matter and anti-matter) were formed and they annihilated each other rapidly. Energy was released. There was a slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter, allowing us to be here today. Hydrogen formed. Stars coalesced. Hydrogen was fused into helium. Heluim fused into... ad infinitum until Iron (I think that's the cutoff). Iron was fused into larger molecules during supernovae. None of this says anything about its state.
If your real objection is to the word 'incinerate' (since metals cannot undergo combustion reactions) then a better choice might be sublimation, although that does not convey the whole 'total destruction' thing lightsabers do. Also: gaseous Iron is incredibly hot and lightsabers do not appear to release heat when they come into contact with metal (or at least prevent the metal from radiating heat, which amounts to the same thing).
Planets have gravity. (re: the planet bit)
Conservation of matter (mass?) says that elements are found in equal amounts on both sides of equation; even a combustion reaction doesn't actually destroy elements. It rearranges them. So using the technical definition of incineration is fallacious but the colloquial usage (it gets vaporized/disappeared/blowed up/etc.) is perfectly accurate.
now,a lightsaber transfers its heat to any material that enters its beam.if a bullet would pass through a lightsaber,it would take its heat and hit Vader with that heat and ,due to lack of resistance from the beam, with the same force that it had.that would pretty much kill him,cause not even his armor can withstand a lightsaber's heat.
Not necessarily. Sabers do not radiate heat (if they melt metal through heat then no jedi could hold them so close to their body) and the metal they melt does not radiate heat (Qui-Gon was hilt-deep in a molten blast door, and nothing I've seen about durasteel says that it does not radiate heat (since that is impossible at these levels). ((It could withstand heat, but that does nothing to its actual temperature- it could be very hot but unfazed.))
The bottom line is that your assertion that metals cannot incinerate is either pedantic in the extreme or ignorant. Furthermore, the rationalization behind it includes a non-sequitur (the Big bang is utterly irrelevant) and partially misleading application of needlessly technical definitions (combustion does not apply to metals but no one was suggesting that CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O was the reason Vader would be safe).