The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

[Eternal_Freedom]

He'd dismiss it as "not relevant to that thread" (incidentally that's a really odd linguistic quirk, using that instead of this) like anything he doesn't like. And then later claim he never said that most likely.

[Lagmonster]

We don't need to be speculating on his motives; it has no bearing on the argument. If he or anyone decides to flout our debating rules, let me know where and how and I'll step in and kick whoever it is in the metaphorical pants.

[WATCH-MAN]

• Is it just me, or is WATCH-MAN treating this like a criminal trial in which he is the defense lawyer who gets to shove the burden of proof down our throats? His standard of evidence seems to be that unless we can conclusively prove that it must be one thing, then he gets to assume that it is the other.

  • Maybe that thought isn't so wrong.
    
    Because to me it seems as if you are doing a typical error in investigations.
    
    As Sherlock Holmes put it: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
    
    But you all have your theory: The Star Wars galaxy is a spiral galaxy similar to the Milky Way.
    
    That theory was justified when the EU was still canon and provided more than enough facts to support that theory.
    
    But now the EU isn't canon any more and we have to re-evaluate the evidences.
    
    For me - as I have never known the EU - that's relative easy.
    
    For you - as you have learned more about Star Wars from the EU than from the movies - it is especially difficult.
    
    As Sherlock Holmes said, you are insensibly twisting facts to suit your theory.
    
    But I'm trying to look for the facts and only when I have all available facts I will form an opinion.

[WATCH-MAN]

• I also find it vaguely offensive that he keeps casting aspersions on my use of logic and what I consider reasonable deductions and suppositions.
  
  Well, I would find it more annoying if he wasn't a trolling fuckwit.

  • That post only shows that you really have problems with logic.
    
    If you really think that I am only "a trolling fuckwit", why do you care that I keep casting aspersions on your use of logic and what you consider reasonable deductions and suppositions.
    
    I mean I have such a low opinion of you that it totally lets me cool that you think that I'm "a trolling fuckwit".
    
    Your post even amuses me as it isn't possible to show more clearly who the "trolling fuckwit" really is.
    
    I mean I haven't to do much to reveal your intellectual unarmedness to the whole audience.
    
    You are doing it yourself.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Keep telling yourself that sunshine.

Now then, have you found an objective evidence about the SW galaxy's size or morphology yet?

[Boeing 757]

• Well that is obviously pointless, since without the EU books which gave us specific numbers, we can not come to an accurate number for you.

  • That would mean that there is no evidence.

  What we do know from available canon sources is that the SW Galaxy is a spiral galaxy, and it has companion dwarf spiral-galaxies in orbit about itself.

  • It's like in a kindergarten. One has to say the same thing again and again as nobody is able to listen to what was said to another.
    
    Do you have any evidence for this claim?
    
    And please consider what was already said in the very first post of this thread and in all other posts; all the arguments and objections in this thread.

Yeah, the computer display that Obi-Wan refers to in AOTC. The implications of it strongly hint that said objects are not a part of the SW Galaxy itself, that they are divisible astronomical bodies.

I will not answer you again if you merely repeat what others have already said and thus force me to repeat my objections again.[/list]

I am not repeating anything, and they are my own thoughts. I have read bits and pieces of replies, but I legitimately do not have the time to gloss over every person's reply in such a huge thread like this, given that I have been traveling constantly this week alone. Feel free not to reply, I don't care since you seem to have a weird obsession with this topic, for whatever your ulterior motive is....

That means that it could be far bigger than the Milky Way (that could range upwards to 200,000 lightyears or 500,000 lightyears in diameter), equal in size to the Milky Way or perhaps smaller (50,000 lightyears or so).

• Or it could have a diameter of less than 5 kpc - as there are spiral galaxies that are so small.
  
  Or it could be no spiral galaxy at all. It could be an elliptical galaxy or an irregular galaxy.

Are you kidding me? Even if you question the validity of the object in ESB being the GFFA, the library display in AOTC CLEARLY highlights that the SW Galaxy is in fact a spiral galaxy....

And I want to state plainly here, I can care less whether it be an elliptical or irregular galaxy. It is what it is, pal--and it looks to be a spiral. I hope though that you do understand if it should be an elliptical galaxy, that the underlying implications of that likely signifies that the SW Galaxy is much larger than the Milky Way, that the speed of hyperdrive will likely need to be increased, that the number of systems inhabited is potentially higher and certainly the number of ships needed to police all that space will range into the tens millions without a doubt....

Ideally, I would say that it is on par to the Milky Way to be fair.

• And this shows a blatant bias.
  
  Why not look at the objective evidence and form then an opinion.
  
  Why not admitting that there are things we simply do not know.
  
  That wouldn't make the Star Wars galaxy small or big.
  
  It would simply mean that we do not know much about its morphology or dimension.

Really, BIAS? Everyone in this thread has conceded that there are no official figures on the size of the SW Galaxy. Pegging the size to be equal with the Milky Way is being fair, I believe. It is not either too small or too big when the scale of most galaxies is considered. If it is 80000 lightyears in diameter instead of 100,000 LY, who the hell cares?

Seriously, dude. I really do suspect that you have an ulterior motive in this thread, one that fits your pro-Trek agenda.

And my guess is that you are so keen to make it out far smaller than the Milky Way so that the speed of hyperdrive can be lowered to that of ST warp drive. Just a guess....

• There is a saying: What I'm willing to do myself, I wouldn't put past others.
  
  You have shown your bias above.
  
  Maybe your goal is to keep the Star Wars galaxy as large as the EU says it is so that the speed of hyper drive is not lowered.
  
  That's why you are arguing that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way - whereas I'm arguing nothing but am only looking for objective evidence.
  
  If the objective evidence supports the claim that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way, I can live with it.
  
  If the objective evidence proves that the Star Wars galaxy is far smaller, I can live with it too.
  
  It there is no objective evidence, I can live with the uncertainty too.

LOL! The Milky Way is not too big on the scale of what is termed large regarding galactic size in this universe. There are spirals out there that like Andromeda or M100 which are far bigger in regards to mass and diameter, and so forth. Which is why I believe that it is far to peg it at about the size of the Milky Way more or less...but even if it isn't, I am fine with the SW Galaxy being 50000 LY across like the Pinwheel Galaxy. Heck, why not make it 30000 LY in diameter. Still doesn't change the fact that hyperdrive is FAR faster than warp drive or that the Empire will WTF pwn fuck the Federation into oblivion.

And in the audio commentary of TESB, it was stated that that object is the SW Galaxy.

• The audio commentary is overridden by the movie.

The fact that it seems to spin too quickly, is purely a visual FX error,

• Now you ignore evidence you do not like.
  
  With that argumentation we can dismiss all we are seeing in space as all is only FX.
  
  Or are we cherry picking? What supports our view is admissible and what contradicts our view has to be an FX error?

and may be reasonably be explained away by the fact that the Rebel fleet could have been maneuvering in space (which, it was seen doing so).

• Do you really understand what you are saying?
  
  That would mean that the rebel fleet hat to move with billion times the speed of light.
  
  Curtis Saxton has explained it: "the observed rotation would equate to rotational speeds on the rim reaching at least "the impossible velocity of 33 billion times the speed of light"."
  
  Assuming that this is indeed a galaxy but it is not rotating as fast as seen, that the rebel fleet is moving around it, means, that the rebel fleet has to be as fast - and even fast as they are far far farther away from the rim.

FX screw-ups happen all the time in sci-fi. It was apparently the scriptwriters intent to portray the SW Galaxy itself at the end of ESB, but for whatever reason they made the object rotate too fast (they're not astronomers, obviously and do not care). Take for example ST IV where a Bird of Prey has a colossal size as it circles Earth's sun. It happens, unless you want to claim that BoPs have a wingspan as wide as Earth's diameter.... Yes, there are some good critiques that Saxton's page brings up though, which is good.

The object appears too be a spiral galaxy

• Repeating a claim several times does not substitute the necessity to provide evidence.

and the Millenium Falcon sets course towards it. Or are you going to claim that the MF was on course into a planetary nebula?

• Where is the problem?
  
  Why not flying through a nebula - if it is a nebula?
  
  Furthermore: Who says that the Millennium Falcon flew through whatever it is and not past it?

It could have gone anywhere. That's not a serious point in favor of it being the SW Galaxy that we saw.

Then what else were the spiral galaxy-looking objects in orbit about the main one?

• 1. I have not claimed that the objects that appear to be a galaxy in the background is not al galaxy.
  2. I have not seen any evidence that they are orbiting the galaxy that is depicted in the middle of the screen.

OK, then exactly pray tell are they? Nebulae of some kind of crucial galactic importance (LOL)? The first thing that came in my mind was that we were looking at the GFFA, and there happened to be two or three other smaller dwarf galaxies orbiting it. Seemingly, others have come to the same conclusion as well. If they are galaxies and not in any way paired with the GFFA, then that should mean that they are even further away from the SW Galaxy than satellite galaxies typically are from their partners which they orbit. Remember, Kamino is only twelve parsecs outside of the Rishi Maze....

Obi-Wan was describing the location of Kamino on the digital screen [...]

• Yes - he was trying to describe the location of a star system on a screen depicting three galaxies.

, and pointed to the galaxy-looking object while naming it the Rishi Maze.

• No
  
  Please consider what was already said in the very first post of this thread and in all other posts; all the arguments and objections in this thread. I will not answer you again if you merely repeat what others have already said and thus force me to repeat my objections again.
  
  This one time I will repeat what I had already written and what you should have considered:
  

  • • • • It is not enough to show that from the perspective of the camera his finger was in front of what appears to be a galaxy in the background. You have to provide evidence that from his perspective, he was pointing to it, that if you would elongate his finger, the tip would touch the display exactly where the galaxy is.

          and
          

          [...]
          
          I can not see how far away his finger was from the display, where it would be when looked from the perspective of Obi Wan or where it would touch the display if the direction of the pointing finger is followed. As I have already said above, in the Wookipedia entry about Kamino in the chapter "Behind the scenes" they seem to think that Obi Wan pointed toward the Unknown Regions, where no known systems are located.
          
          And watching the "zoom in" direction, it does not appear as it is zooming to somewhere at the edge of the galaxy but into the bulge of the galaxy.
          
          Maybe someone could provide us with an image analysis which considers the typical problems of watching a three-dimensional event on a two-dimensional screen - especially if the seen computer display may be a 3D display, depicting a the three-dimensional map on a two-dimensional surface.
          
          Otherwise I think we have to regard this scene as a non sequitur.
          
          It does not proves that Kamino is outside of the Star Wars galaxy.

  Please provide evidence.

It sounds like you're rambling on about irrelevant stuff here. Good lord, man, you sound like a robot or something... At this point, you're simply trolling.

Kamino is stated to be located not too far away from the Rishi Maze, only a few parsecs outside (but still deemed to be part of the SW galaxy).

• Not knowing what the Rishi Maze is and where it is, that doesn't mean anything.
  
  Without evidence that Obi Wan pointed to what appears to be a galaxy in the background, we have no evidence that this galaxy is supposed to be this Rishi Maze.

[/list]

Said objects appear to be satellite galaxies. You're making this FAR too complicated. Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is valid instead of whatever convoluted elaboration you hold in your mind.

And did we even watch the same film here? Obi-Wan points to said object, and names it the "Rishi Maze". WTF, man. Watch your own 'evidence'.

[Boeing 757]

Double post, sorry.

[WATCH-MAN]

• What we do know from available canon sources is that the SW Galaxy is a spiral galaxy, and it has companion dwarf spiral-galaxies in orbit about itself.

  • [...]
    
    Do you have any evidence for this claim?
    
    And please consider what was already said in the very first post of this thread and in all other posts; all the arguments and objections in this thread.

  Yeah, the computer display that Obi-Wan refers to in AOTC. The implications of it strongly hint that said objects are not a part of the SW Galaxy itself, that they are divisible astronomical bodies.

  • In one single sentence, you made three claims:
    1. the SW Galaxy is a spiral galaxy,
    2. it has dwarf spiral-galaxies
    3. in orbit about itself
    I asked you to provide evidence.
    
    Now you explain that the map as seen on the screen in the Jedi archives proves hat "said objects are not a part of the SW Galaxy itself, that they are divisible astronomical bodies."
    
    I have never contested that - as this wasn't what you claimed.
    
    You claimed that "the SW Galaxy is a spiral galaxy, and it has companion dwarf spiral-galaxies in orbit about itself."
    
    You do not even try to explain how this is supposed to prove that said objects are dwarf spiral-galaxies and that they are orbiting the galaxy that is depicted in the midde of the screen?
    
    You do not even try to explain how this is supposed to prove that the galaxy that is depicted in the middle of the screen is a spiral galaxy.

  That means that it could be far bigger than the Milky Way (that could range upwards to 200,000 lightyears or 500,000 lightyears in diameter), equal in size to the Milky Way or perhaps smaller (50,000 lightyears or so).

  • Or it could have a diameter of less than 5 kpc - as there are spiral galaxies that are so small.
    
    Or it could be no spiral galaxy at all. It could be an elliptical galaxy or an irregular galaxy.

  Are you kidding me? Even if you question the validity of the object in ESB being the GFFA, the library display in AOTC CLEARLY highlights that the SW Galaxy is in fact a spiral galaxy....

  • And another claim without evidence.
    
    If you want to prove that the galaxy depicted on the screen in the Jedi archives is indeed a spiral galaxy, you should start to enumerate what distinguishes a spiral galaxy from other kinds of galaxies. Elliptical galaxies or disc galaxies as Lenticular galaxies e.g. can have a bulge too. And Lenticular galaxies have a typical disk as spiral galaxies have too.
    
    Only if you can show that the depicted galaxy has typical characteristics of a spiral galaxy, that no other kind of galaxy has, can you prove that the depicted galaxy is indeed a spiral galaxy.
    
    But that should be difficult.
    
    As I have already said - as you would know if you had read what was already said and had considered it:
    

    • • • • There is of course the image of the map of the galaxy as seen in the Jedi Archives.
            

            • • • • 

            But I’m afraid that the image is not distinct enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the morphology or the dimensions of the depicted galaxy.

    But as you do not believe one thing I'm saying, let me quote Saxton Curtis: "Obi-Wan Kenobi sought to learn about the planet Kamino in the Jedi Archives, and displayed his non-results in an intriguing flat-screen image of the galaxy. This picture is especially significant and interesting because it is not a pure schematic, but appears to be a nearly photographic representation overlain with spatial reference markings. We can assume that the galaxy really does look like this image, when viewed in at least some particular choice of wavelengths from a certain point of view.
    
    The depicted bulge appears exceptionally bright and prominent, but this may be an effect of image saturation. Dark markings on the near side of the disk appear to obscuring dust lanes. There appear to be two bands of brightness on the north and south sides of the galactic axis, but it isn't clear whether they are an astronomical phenomenon or merely cartographic markings.
    
    The bulge and disk of the galaxy are entirely enclosed within a pill-shaped cyndrical surface. This presumably shows the extent of charted and accessible space (as far as the Jedi are concerned). Realistically, there may be a smattering of a few million halo stars outside this region.
    
    Remarkably, two more spiral galaxies appear in the top left and bottom right corners of the image. They may be more distant galaxies that coincidentally lie in the background, or they may be nearer but smaller satellite galaxies that are gravitationally bound to the Galactic Republic. In projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. Therefore the other galaxies must really be located somewhat in front of or behind the main plane of the picture. " [Star Wars - Technical Commentaries - The Galaxy - Jedi Archive Map]
    
    It's curious. But as it seems, he too can't take that image as evidence that the galaxy depicted in the middle of the screen is a spiral galaxy.

  And I want to state plainly here, I can care less whether it be an elliptical or irregular galaxy. It is what it is, pal--and it looks to be a spiral. I hope though that you do understand if it should be an elliptical galaxy, that the underlying implications of that likely signifies that the SW Galaxy is much larger than the Milky Way, that the speed of hyperdrive will likely need to be increased, that the number of systems inhabited is potentially higher and certainly the number of ships needed to police all that space will range into the tens millions without a doubt....

  • And yet another claim without evidence.
    
    Please provide evidence that elliptical or irregular galaxies usually are greater than spiral galaxies.
    
    Wikipedia in its entry about "Dwarf spiral galaxy" e.g. writes: "Dwarf spiral galaxies, particularly the dwarf counterparts of Sa-Sc type spiral galaxies, are quite rare. In contrast, dwarf elliptical galaxies, dwarf irregular galaxies, and the dwarf versions of Magellanic type galaxies (which may be considered transitory between spiral and irregular in terms of morphology) are very common."
    
    And I had already written:
    

    • • • • There are many different kinds of galaxies in many different sizes.
            
            Most galaxies are - compared to the Milky Way - rather small.
            
            In the Local Group there are more than 54 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way are the largest galaxies in the Local Group. The Triangulum Galaxy, , the third largestgalaxy in the Local Group, has only a diameter of 60,000 ly or a mass of 5 × 10^10 solar masses - whereas the Milky Way has a diameter of 100,000–180,000 ly and a mass of 0.8–1.5×10^12 solar masses. All other galaxies in the Local Group are significantly smaller.
            
            Please provide evidence that the Milky Way somehow is the universal standard and that, if we have no otherwise provided informations, we have to assume that a galaxy has to be similar in its properties to the Milky Way.

    That you didn't know that bit, I can excuse as it is from another thread and I can not expect from you that you are reading all threads in which I participate.

  Ideally, I would say that it is on par to the Milky Way to be fair.

  • And this shows a blatant bias.
    
    Why not look at the objective evidence and form then an opinion.
    
    Why not admitting that there are things we simply do not know.
    
    That wouldn't make the Star Wars galaxy small or big.
    
    It would simply mean that we do not know much about its morphology or dimension.

  Really, BIAS? Everyone in this thread has conceded that there are no official figures on the size of the SW Galaxy.

  • As I have said already to Eternal_Freedom:
    

    • • • • • And I will note that you didn't actually answer the question. You claim not to be arguing anything, yet your entire original post was outlining why you thought the SW galaxy was smaller and/or denser than we might expect. You ask for evidence on the size and morphology and yet freely admit there is no such evidence.
              
              Once again, what are you trying to do here?

              • You mean you didn't liked my answer as you can not imagine that I'm only asking you for evidence regarding the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.
                
                And I have never admitted that there is no such evidence.
                
                If that is what you think, state it and leave that thread as you have nothing to contribute to it any more.
                
                But do not put your thoughts into my mouth.

            and
            

            • All right then WATCH-MAN. You say the purpose of the thread is to establish what evidence we have for the size and morphology of the SW galaxy. Both you and I have admitted and agreed no such evidence exists beyond material that is no longer canon (but once was, and high-tier canon as well) and reasonable inferences.
              
              So there is no evidence. So your thread is done. Bye-bye.

              • I have not agreed with you that there is no such evidence.
                
                If that is what you think, state it and leave that thread as you have nothing to contribute to it any more.
                
                But do not put your thoughts into my mouth.

  Pegging the size to be equal with the Milky Way is being fair, I believe.

  • What has this to do with fair?

  It is not either too small or too big when the scale of most galaxies is considered. If it is 80000 lightyears in diameter instead of 100,000 LY, who the hell cares?

  • Wrong:

    • • • • There are many different kinds of galaxies in many different sizes.
            
            Most galaxies are - compared to the Milky Way - rather small.
            
            In the Local Group there are more than 54 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way are the largest galaxies in the Local Group. The Triangulum Galaxy, , the third largestgalaxy in the Local Group, has only a diameter of 60,000 ly or a mass of 5 × 10^10 solar masses - whereas the Milky Way has a diameter of 100,000–180,000 ly and a mass of 0.8–1.5×10^12 solar masses. All other galaxies in the Local Group are significantly smaller.
            
            Please provide evidence that the Milky Way somehow is the universal standard and that, if we have no otherwise provided informations, we have to assume that a galaxy has to be similar in its properties to the Milky Way.

  Seriously, dude. I really do suspect that you have an ulterior motive in this thread, one that fits your pro-Trek agenda.

  • To quote Lagmonster:

    • • • • We don't need to be speculating on his motives; it has no bearing on the argument.

  And my guess is that you are so keen to make it out far smaller than the Milky Way so that the speed of hyperdrive can be lowered to that of ST warp drive. Just a guess....

  • There is a saying: What I'm willing to do myself, I wouldn't put past others.
    
    You have shown your bias above.
    
    Maybe your goal is to keep the Star Wars galaxy as large as the EU says it is so that the speed of hyper drive is not lowered.
    
    That's why you are arguing that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way - whereas I'm arguing nothing but am only looking for objective evidence.
    
    If the objective evidence supports the claim that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way, I can live with it.
    
    If the objective evidence proves that the Star Wars galaxy is far smaller, I can live with it too.
    
    It there is no objective evidence, I can live with the uncertainty too.

  LOL! The Milky Way is not too big on the scale of what is termed large regarding galactic size in this universe. There are spirals out there that like Andromeda or M100 which are far bigger in regards to mass and diameter, and so forth. Which is why I believe that it is far to peg it at about the size of the Milky Way more or less...but even if it isn't, I am fine with the SW Galaxy being 50000 LY across like the Pinwheel Galaxy. Heck, why not make it 30000 LY in diameter. Still doesn't change the fact that hyperdrive is FAR faster than warp drive or that the Empire will WTF pwn fuck the Federation into oblivion.

  • 1. Your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote.
    2. I did not claimed that the Milky Way is the biggest galaxy or that there aren't any galaxies that are far far bigger than the Milky Way.
    3. That there are galaxies that are bigger than the Milky Way proves nothing regarding the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy
    4. This thread is not about hyper drive speeds
    5. This thread is not about the question if "the Empire will WTF pwn fuck the Federation into oblivion"

  FX screw-ups happen all the time in sci-fi. It was apparently the scriptwriters intent to portray the SW Galaxy itself at the end of ESB, but for whatever reason they made the object rotate too fast (they're not astronomers, obviously and do not care). Take for example ST IV where a Bird of Prey has a colossal size as it circles Earth's sun. It happens, unless you want to claim that BoPs have a wingspan as wide as Earth's diameter.... Yes, there are some good critiques that Saxton's page brings up though, which is good.

  • To that kind of argumentation I had already written something:
    

    • • • • Now you are trying to ignore evidence you do not like.
            
            With that argumentation we can dismiss all we are seeing in space as all is only FX.
            
            Or are we cherry picking? What supports our view is admissible and what contradicts our view has to be an FX error?

  and the Millenium Falcon sets course towards it. Or are you going to claim that the MF was on course into a planetary nebula?

  • Where is the problem?
    
    Why not flying through a nebula - if it is a nebula?
    
    Furthermore: Who says that the Millennium Falcon flew through whatever it is and not past it?

  It could have gone anywhere. That's not a serious point in favor of it being the SW Galaxy that we saw.

  • Do you still know, what you are arguing?
    
    You asked me if I wanted to claim that the Millennium Falcon was on course into a planetary nebula?
    
    I replied: Why not? and asked how we would know that the Millennium Falcon flew through whatever it is and not past it?
    
    Of course it could have gone anywhere. That was my point.
    
    And I have never claimed that this questions has any relevance regarding the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.
    
    It was you who brought this up.

  Then what else were the spiral galaxy-looking objects in orbit about the main one?

  • 1. I have not claimed that the objects that appear to be a galaxy in the background is not a galaxy.
    2. I have not seen any evidence that they are orbiting the galaxy that is depicted in the middle of the screen.

  OK, then exactly pray tell are they?

  • Galaxies
    
    Are you to stupid to understand what you read?
    
    Do I have to repeat what I have written:
    
    • • • • I have not claimed that the objects that appear to be a galaxy in the background is not al galaxy.
    Do you notice the NOT in this sentence?

  Nebulae of some kind of crucial galactic importance (LOL)?

  • Obviously not.

  The first thing that came in my mind was that we were looking at the GFFA, and there happened to be two or three other smaller dwarf galaxies orbiting it. Seemingly, others have come to the same conclusion as well. If they are galaxies and not in any way paired with the GFFA, then that should mean that they are even further away from the SW Galaxy than satellite galaxies typically are from their partners which they orbit. Remember, Kamino is only twelve parsecs outside of the Rishi Maze....

  GFFA is not a canonical term.
  
  What came to your mind is irrelevant - especially as it is your mind.
  
  You failed to provide evidence for the location of the Rishi Maze.
  
  And please do not simply claim again that Obi Wan pointed to what appears to be a galaxy in the background and called it Rishi Maze.
  
  Provide evidence for it - considering all the already exchanged arguments and objections.

Said objects appear to be satellite galaxies. You're making this FAR too complicated. Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is valid instead of whatever convoluted elaboration you hold in your mind.

And did we even watch the same film here? Obi-Wan points to said object, and names it the "Rishi Maze". WTF, man. Watch your own 'evidence'.

• You claim that the objects that appear to be galaxies in the background or foreground of the galaxy depicted in the middle of the screen are satellite galaxies.
  
  But you do not provide any evidence for it.
  
  Let me quote Curtis Saxton again: "Remarkably, two more spiral galaxies appear in the top left and bottom right corners of the image. They may be more distant galaxies that coincidentally lie in the background, or they may be nearer but smaller satellite galaxies that are gravitationally bound to the Galactic Republic. In projection the intergalactic separations appear comparable to the galactic diameters, which cannot be literally true because tidal forces would distort the galaxies' shapes if they were so close. Therefore the other galaxies must really be located somewhat in front of or behind the main plane of the picture." [Star Wars - Technical Commentaries - The Galaxy - Jedi Archive Map]
  
  Curios that he too can't decide if they are distant galaxies that coincidentally lie in the background or smaller satellite galaxies.
  
  But of course you know it and can prove that they can only be smaller satellite galaxies.
  
  You claim that Obi Wan pointed to one of these galaxies and called it Rishi Maze. But if asked to provide evidence that he indeed pointed to one of these galaxies - you provide noting.
  
  When I explained why we can not simply assume that he pointed to one of these galaxies, that we have to consider the perspective, you simply brushed my explanation away as rambling on about irrelevant stuff.
  
  Do you really think that it is irrelevant whereto exactly Obi Wan's finger pointed?

[/list]

[Simon_Jester]

We don't need to be speculating on his motives; it has no bearing on the argument. If he or anyone decides to flout our debating rules, let me know where and how and I'll step in and kick whoever it is in the metaphorical pants.

I'd argue that he's already done so by using "please provide evidence" of self-evident propositions, scientific facts, and direct references to the movies themselves, things which are themselves evidence.

To me, that's a cornerstone of "wall of ignorance" tactics. When you hear that there's a scientific study disproving your claim and you demand that the other party 'prove scientific studies are valid,' you're not asking for evidence in a meaningful fashion; you're just stalling.

[Adam Reynolds]

Maybe that thought isn't so wrong.

Because to me it seems as if you are doing a typical error in investigations.

As Sherlock Holmes put it: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

But you all have your theory: The Star Wars galaxy is a spiral galaxy similar to the Milky Way.

That theory was justified when the EU was still canon and provided more than enough facts to support that theory.

But now the EU isn't canon any more and we have to re-evaluate the evidences.

For me - as I have never known the EU - that's relative easy.

For you - as you have learned more about Star Wars from the EU than from the movies - it is especially difficult.

As Sherlock Holmes said, you are insensibly twisting facts to suit your theory.

But I'm trying to look for the facts and only when I have all available facts I will form an opinion.

Nice pot-kettle situation. You are taking the opposite position, that the Star Wars galaxy "feels" smaller than ours. You are ignoring any evidence that contradicts your original feeling rather than considering it properly. When you demand evidence of literally every tiny bit of evidence, you are not considering new data points. In any case, Sherlock Holmes is a worse detective than Hercule Poirot.

In effect what you are doing is similar to the god of the gaps argument. Every time someone provides evidence, you demand further evidence to prove that.

And not that it matters, but I have generally hated the EU and mostly criticized it rather than accepting it. The numbers given by the EU are rarely consistent with the films at all.

I'd argue that he's already done so by using "please provide evidence" of self-evident propositions, scientific facts, and direct references to the movies themselves, things which are themselves evidence.

To me, that's a cornerstone of "wall of ignorance" tactics. When you hear that there's a scientific study disproving your claim and you demand that the other party 'prove scientific studies are valid,' you're not asking for evidence in a meaningful fashion; you're just stalling.

He also ignored your point about Olbers' Paradox, one of the best simple points in favor of a large galaxy as opposed to a dense one. Ignoring a post with a sarcastic comment rather than responding to it is also a cornerstone of such tactics.

[WATCH-MAN]

• Nice pot-kettle situation. You are taking the opposite position, that the Star Wars galaxy "feels" smaller than ours. You are ignoring any evidence that contradicts your original feeling rather than considering it properly. When you demand evidence of literally every tiny bit of evidence, you are not considering new data points.

  • That's not true.
    
    Fact is that you have not provided any evidence - only claims.
    
    Eternal_Freedom claimed that the space in the Star Wars galaxy looked like our space - without providing any evidence.
    
    • • I had to provide images from our space and from the Star Wars space to disprove him.
    Purple claimed that Star Wars has FTL sensors - without providing any evidence.
    
    • Asked to provide evidence, it was claimed that the tactical display in the bunker at Endor showed the Rebel fleet approaching in Hyper space - without providing evidence.
    • • I showed that this is contested - as Curtis Saxton thinks it showed the Imperial fleet.
    • Then it was claimed that the fact that Han Solo came into the main hold boasting shows that until then he was douple checking if they are still followed - without providing evdence.
    • • I contested that - as it seems unlikely. We simply do not know what Han Solo has done before entering main hold, how long they were already underway and as it does not seem probably that, if they were still followed, all others - including the co-pilot - would leave the cockpit and start to play as it is not probably that they would start to play when they would arrive the next few minutes.
    • Then it was claimed that FTL sensors are also backed up by the response by Imperial offcicers on the bridge of the Avenger, that if it were possible for FTL ships to disappear from enemy scopes, then they would simply make the assumption that the Falcon jumped to hyperspace rather than that it cloaked.
    • • I objected that they rejected the possibility at once as no ship this size could have a cloaking device and that the fact that Needa decided to go to Darth Vader to assume full responsibility for losing them, shows that he was convinced that they had lost them - what, when he is convinced that they can not have a cloaking device - is only possible if vanishing into hyper space is as cloaking. Otherwise he had to be convinced that they still had to be in their vicinity.
    • It was claimed that the fact that the Star Destroyers, after leaving hyper space too close to the system but not in the system could detect the energy field the Rebels had erected proves that they had to have FTL sensors.
    • • I objected that we saw that the Imperial fleet was already in the vicinity of the planet Hooth and its moons before the energy shield was reported to Darth Vader.
    Boeing 757 claimed that in TESB we saw the rebel fleet outside their own galaxy.
    
    • • I objected that what we saw couldn't be a galaxy - what Curtis Saxton argued too - as it rotates far too fast.
    • It was argued that this was only an FX error
    • • I objected that this argumentation violates the documentary approach and that we can not cherry picking - what supports our opinion is admissible evidence, what contradicts our opinion is an FX error.
    • Then it was argued that not the galaxy rotates so fast but the rebel fleet is flying around the galaxy what creates from their perspective the illusion as if the galaxy rotates.
    • • I objected that this would mean that the rebel fleet had to fly with a speed of several billion times the speed of light.
    Then Boeing 757 claimed that Kamino, where Obi Wan was, lies outside of the galaxy, that in the Jedi archives Obi Wan pointed to the other galaxy, called it Rishi Maze and explained that Kamino lies 12 parsecs south of that.
    
    • • I objected that - without considering the perspective - we can not know to which point on the screen Obi Wan pointed. I provided data of a little experiment I made that showed that even a little head-shaking results in a vastly different position of the finger in front of the screen - up to a third of the screen. I referred to Wookipedia which also said that Obi Wan did not point to the galaxy. But nobody was able to provide an analysis that considered the perspective. It simply was claimed again and again that Obi Wan pointed to the other galaxy and thus that this galaxy had to be the Rishi Maze he mentioned and that thus Kamino had to be outside of the galaxy.
    Excuse me - but not one single claim can survive a critical consideration.

  In any case, Sherlock Holmes is a worse detective than Hercule Poirot.

  • That may be - but I have never heard of Hercule Poirot

  In effect what you are doing is similar to the god of the gaps argument. Every time someone provides evidence, you demand further evidence to prove that.

  • Please show me one single evidence provided in that thread.
    
    I have only seen claims.

  And not that it matters, but I have generally hated the EU and mostly criticized it rather than accepting it. The numbers given by the EU are rarely consistent with the films at all.

  • You are right - it does not matter.

  [...]

  He also ignored your point about Olbers' Paradox, one of the best simple points in favor of a large galaxy as opposed to a dense one. Ignoring a post with a sarcastic comment rather than responding to it is also a cornerstone of such tactics.

  • I did not ignored a specific point of what Simon_Jester said - I ignored all he said as he came into the thread and the first thing he said was that he didn't read what was already argued as he had not the time for this. I replied that I have not the time to read his post when he may only be repeating what others have already said.

[Simon_Jester]

• Nice pot-kettle situation. You are taking the opposite position, that the Star Wars galaxy "feels" smaller than ours. You are ignoring any evidence that contradicts your original feeling rather than considering it properly. When you demand evidence of literally every tiny bit of evidence, you are not considering new data points.

  • That's not true.
    
    Fact is that you have not provided any evidence - only claims.
    
    Eternal_Freedom claimed that the space in the Star Wars galaxy looked like our space - without providing any evidence.
    
    • • I had to provide images from our space and from the Star Wars space to disprove him.

Your alleged 'disproof' is based on the assumption that what we see in the movies is a photorealistic depiction of what a film camera set to a fixed exposure duration would see. That is an unproven assumption on your part, and an unwarranted one.

• Then it was argued that not the galaxy rotates so fast but the rebel fleet is flying around the galaxy what creates from their perspective the illusion as if the galaxy rotates.

• • I objected that this would mean that the rebel fleet had to fly with a speed of several billion times the speed of light.

You know, that's right! Which is an excellent argument for the exact point you've set out to deconstruct.

• Please show me one single evidence provided in that thread.
  
  I have only seen claims.

[/list][/list]

The problem here is that you are here defining "evidence" as "a claim that I happen to agree with."

[Mange]

• Are you kidding me? Even if you question the validity of the object in ESB being the GFFA, the library display in AOTC CLEARLY highlights that the SW Galaxy is in fact a spiral galaxy....

And not to forget, the map in Amidala's yacht in AOTC shows it even more clearly.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Damnit, I had completely forgotten that scene!

I don't have screenshots available at present, but tha map (it then zooms in to show Tatooine and Geonosis being relativly close together) clearly shows a spiral galaxy, with at least two major spiral arms (possibly more, but two for certain).

[Boeing 757]

Ah yes, I had completely forgotten about that too. Thank you, Mange.

[Galvatron]

You guys mean this?

http://i60.tinypic.com/2lmw4cx.jpg

Anyone know what that Aurebesh says?

[Esquire]

If that's from AOTC, I'd guess it says "Geonosis."

[Elheru Aran]

Yep-- Geonosis (god am I such a nerd for figuring that out without even referring to anything). I had heard that typically Aurebesh in the OT didn't mean anything, being a random assemblage of symbols, but looks like they made proper words out of it in the PT. Interesting.

[Lord Revan]

Tbh it shows a ringed Planet and from the context of that scene you can assume it's meant to say "Geonosis" as anything else doesn't make much sense in context. That said I don't have the time or energy to write a small novel to prove that said group of glyphs is meant to read "Geonosis" so we probably have accept that Watch-man will dissmiss that map.

[Elheru Aran]

It's actually not that hard. Even without knowing Aurebesh, you can see that there are repeating digits in there-- third and fifth, sixth and eighth, which match up with the 'O' and 'S' positions of the word. Purely elementary alphabetic substitution.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thanks for the link to an image Galvatron.

Of course, the Aurebesh probably won't be accepted by Watch-Man as canon evidence since we never see an English/Aurebesh alphabet in the films. The image, however, is conclusive. The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy with at least two, possibly more spiral arms. Boom.

[Lord Revan]

Thanks for the link to an image Galvatron.

Of course, the Aurebesh probably won't be accepted by Watch-Man as canon evidence since we never see an English/Aurebesh alphabet in the films. The image, however, is conclusive. The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy with at least two, possibly more spiral arms. Boom.

He'll probably just ask evidence to show that picture depicts the SW galaxy, he's quite consistent after all.

[WATCH-MAN]

• And not to forget, the map in Amidala's yacht in AOTC shows it even more clearly.

  You guys mean this?
  
  http://i60.tinypic.com/2lmw4cx.jpg
  
  Anyone know what that Aurebesh says?

  • Finally someone provides evidence.
    
    It's a shame that nobody before referred to that event.
    
    • • • • 
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
    I do not contest that this image depicts the Star Wars galaxy - although I wonder why this depiction of the Star Wars galaxy
    
    • • • • 
    looks so different from that depiction:
    
    • • • • 
    The question now is, what we can learn from that image.
    
    What does it prove?
    
    What distinguishes a spiral galaxy from other kinds of galaxies and are we seeing here such distinguishing details?
    
    Can we even ascertain the kind of spiral galaxy - if it is one?
    
    What does this image prove about the size of the Star Wars galaxy?
    
    What does it prove about the location of Geonosis an Tatooine within the galaxy?

[WATCH-MAN]

• If that's from AOTC, I'd guess it says "Geonosis."

  Yep-- Geonosis (god am I such a nerd for figuring that out without even referring to anything). I had heard that typically Aurebesh in the OT didn't mean anything, being a random assemblage of symbols, but looks like they made proper words out of it in the PT. Interesting.

  Tbh it shows a ringed Planet and from the context of that scene you can assume it's meant to say "Geonosis" as anything else doesn't make much sense in context. That said I don't have the time or energy to write a small novel to prove that said group of glyphs is meant to read "Geonosis" so we probably have accept that Watch-man will dissmiss that map.

  It's actually not that hard. Even without knowing Aurebesh, you can see that there are repeating digits in there-- third and fifth, sixth and eighth, which match up with the 'O' and 'S' positions of the word. Purely elementary alphabetic substitution.

  Thanks for the link to an image Galvatron.
  
  Of course, the Aurebesh probably won't be accepted by Watch-Man as canon evidence since we never see an English/Aurebesh alphabet in the films. The image, however, is conclusive. The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy with at least two, possibly more spiral arms. Boom.

  • I do not contest that the image depicts the Star Wars galaxy.
    
    I contest that there is such thing as "Aurebesh". That's a term from the EU.
    
    And it may be that the symbols mean GEONOSIS.
    
    But as you may notice, the symbols are there even before the region where Geonosis is supposed to be located is framed.
    
    That puts into question if the symbols really mean Geonosis - especially as the planet with the ring depicted at the end of that scene has its own symbols.
    
    If someone has an image with a higher resolution, it would be interesting to compare the symbols seen from the beginning of that scene with the symbols that are appearing at the end of the scene with the planet that is probably Geonosis.

[WATCH-MAN]

• The image, however, is conclusive. The SW galaxy is a spiral galaxy with at least two, possibly more spiral arms.

  • What lets you say that there are at least two arms, that there could be even more arms.
    
    Is this again an example for your wishful thinking?
    
    Or is there anything that indicates such a possibility - even if it is not conclusive?