The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Locked
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Considering the new canon policy, which evidence for the size of the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?

    I ask because I have never read anything from the EU.

    I only know the movies and a few episodes from the “The Clone Wars” and from “Rebels”.

    My impression from this film footage always was that the Star Wars galaxy has to be a very small and very dense galaxy.

    Why?

    My astrophysical knowledge may be limited, but as far as I know, in the Milky Way I could close my eyes and arbitrary set a course and fly with closed eyes through the Milky Way and the probability that I would collide with anything would be nearly zero. Two galaxies could pass through each other without any collisions.

    But in the very first movie I have seen, it was impossible for the Millennium Falcon to even make an emergency jump away from the pursuing Star Destroyers because without precise calculations it could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova.

    The impression that let me be with is that the Star Wars galaxy has to be really dense that it is more probably that you could get destroyed when engaging hyper speed without precise calculations- even for an emergency jump - than to get destroyed by three pursuing Star Destroyers.

    I mean the Millennium Falcon didn’t had to fly directly to Alderaan. It would have been enough to jump away from the pursuing Star Destroyers into safety and then calculate the jump to Alderaan without three Star Destroyers breathing down your neck.

    In the second movie I have seen, the hyper drive of the Millennium Falcon was broken. And yet the Millennium Falcon was able to fly from the Hoth system to the Anoat system to Bespin without its hyper drive.

    Although it was not depicted as a long travel, the movie implies that it was at least long enough for Luke to get a little bit training on Dagobah. But even that means that the distances between the Hoth system and the Anoat system and Bespin have to be relative small. Obviously the travel hasn’t taken years as neither Luke, Han, Leia or Chewbacca has noticeably aged. But in a normal galaxy, interstellar travel with sublight speed should take years.

    An explanation was not provided by the movie - although one would expect that all important facts are disclosed as otherwise the audience can’t understand the movie. If there was e.g. a backup hyper drive one would expect that it would have been mentioned as it could have become useful long before the Millennium Falcon drifted away with the garbage from the Star Destroyer.

    In the fourth movie, the hyper drive of the Queen's starship is damaged. It wasn’t possible anymore for them to reach a save planet of the republic where they could get help from the Republic authorities. But it was possible to reach Tatooine. Conclusion: Naboo and Tatooine can’t be too far away from each other.

    In the fifth movie, Amidala stated that Geonosis is less than a parsec away from Tatooine. Obi Wan’s emitter could reach Naboo and Tatooine from Geonosis, but not Coruscant. Conclusion: Naboo, Tatooine and Geonosis can’t be too far away from each other.

    Furthermore - even considering “The Clone Wars” or “Rebels” it is conspicuous that most events happened more or less on the same planets - as if there weren’t myriad of other planets on which things could happen. And most planets are depicted as very lightly populated. And too often the same few persons are important.

    How probably was it that Chewbacca from the Episodes IV to VI knows Joda?

    How probably is it that Governor Tarkin from Episode VI is the same Tarkin seen in Episode III or in the various episodes of “The Clone Wars” and “Rebels”?

    How probably was it that the father of the bounty hunter in Episode V and VI is the bounty hunter from Episode II and III?

    How probably was it that the Ezra Bridger met with Lando Calrissian or Ahsoka Tano?

    There is something people say to show their surprise when they notice that people or events in different places are connected: It’s a small world.

    And that’s exactly the impression I have been left with: The Star Wars galaxy is a very small and very dense galaxy.



    Now the question is if there is - considering the new canon policy - any evidence to the contrary?

    Are there any distances stated?

    Is there any evidence which kind of galaxy the Star Wars galaxy is or which size it has?

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

    Furthermore is there any evidence regarding the size of the Republic or the Empire in this Galaxy?

    Do we have to invent many elaborated explanations - or take them from the EU - to explain why the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way and yet all I have described above is possible?

    Or isn’t it the easiest explanation that the Star Wars galaxy is indeed very small and dense.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Annotation:
      • I do not want to debate anything.

        I do not want to debate if the impression I have been left with after watching the movies is right.

        I do not want to debate if it is possible that the Star Wars galaxy could be so small and dense - as science fiction movies do show things that should be impossible according to our astrophysical understanding.

        What I want is that you answer the two questions:
              • Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?

                Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Republic or the Empire in the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?
Last edited by WATCH-MAN on 2015-09-26 10:42am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris Parr
Padawan Learner
Posts: 221
Joined: 2007-11-18 08:54am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Chris Parr »

But—wouldn't a super dense galaxy with all those stars so close together be dangerously radioactive? How would life even be able to form in such a galaxy?
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • As I have already said: That's not what I want to discuss. Let's simply assume that midi-chlorians do enable it.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

OK, I'll bite. The SW galaxy cannot be significantly denser than the Milky Way, for the simple reason that the starfields we see are not significantly denser than ones we might see from the ISS in Earth orbit.

Oh, and WATCH-MAN? Pretty much everythign else we candiscuss about this is blocked by your "I don't want to debate anything I just said" statement. Like the Hoth/Anoat/Bespin trip. I never assumed they did the journey at sublight and thus it took them ages. I assumed they had a backup hyperdrive that was real slow, or they managed to bodge it into sort of working or something.

Though as my housemate has pointed out, the "the characters don't noticeably age" is also questionable, since humans generally don't noticeably age over, say, a year or so.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Purple »

I think we can infer that merely from the fact that the falcon looks way too small to store food, water and air supplies for several years worth of travel.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Eternal_Freedom wrote:OK, I'll bite. The SW galaxy cannot be significantly denser than the Milky Way, for the simple reason that the starfields we see are not significantly denser than ones we might see from the ISS in Earth orbit.
    • I'm not sure that this is conclusive. The distance between two stars further away from the observer can appear to be equal to or even smaller than the distance between two not so distant stars.
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:Oh, and WATCH-MAN? Pretty much everythign else we candiscuss about this is blocked by your "I don't want to debate anything I just said" statement. Like the Hoth/Anoat/Bespin trip. I never assumed they did the journey at sublight and thus it took them ages. I assumed they had a backup hyperdrive that was real slow, or they managed to bodge it into sort of working or something.
    • I know that the EU has provided us with the explanation that the Millennium Falcon has a backup hyper drive.

      But I only know it since I visited that board.

      That was never what I thought when watching the movies.

      And nobody else I know thought this. Everybody I know had more or less the same impression from the Star Wars movies.

      Yes - we all know that this is ludicrous as it should be impossible.

      But that was what we thought the movie is showing us.

      If there were a backup-hyper drive or if they had somehow bodged their hyper drive into sort of working, we had expected that it would have been mentioned. It wasn't mentioned.

      According to the movie, the hyper drive of the Millennium Falcon did not work and yet they have flown from Hoth to Anoat to Bespin.

      Why I do not want to discuss this impression is, that I have difficulties believing that someone had another impression when first watching that movie. I have even difficulties believing that most of the audience even noticed that it should be impossible to fly through three star systems without faster than light speeds in an acceptable time frame. I can imagine that many only have started to consider this problem after reading about it in the EU or e.g. on this board. And usually the alternative explanation would have been provided at the same time - as e.g. on this board such a problem isn't addressed without anyone coming at once and providing an alternative explanation.

      The problem is that nobody who claims that his impression when watching the movie was at once that the Millennium Falcon had to have a hyper drive, can provide evidence for this claim.

      At this board, most peoples impression of the movies now is probably tainted by the influence of the EU.

      That's why a honest debate about the impression of the movie alone is nearly impossible to conduct.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Purple wrote:I think we can infer that merely from the fact that the falcon looks way too small to store food, water and air supplies for several years worth of travel.
    • You mean that we can conclude - as the Millennium Falcon couldn't store food, water and air supplies for several years worth of travel - that the Millennium Falcon did not needed several years to fly from Hoth to Anoat to Bespin?

      I agree. I never had the impression that the Millennium Falcon needed years to fly from Hoth to Anoat to Bespin.

      But what does this say about the distance the Millennium Falcon travelled; about the distances between Hoth, Anoat and Bespin?
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Purple »

WATCH-MAN wrote:But what does this say about the distance the Millennium Falcon travelled; about the distances between Hoth, Anoat and Bespin?
Distance can be inferred from other sources such as the fact that the empire with their supposedly super advanced technology could not track them easily. We can right now using the technology we have on hand track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system. So I feel it reasonable to assume that the empire could as well. Thus even if we assume all imperial ships at Hoth were disabled by the Ion cannon our heroes have to have traveled much more than that in order to get out of sensor range and not be intercepted by a single well aimed jump. So at the very least we have several light years as a minimal value for that.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

WATCH-MAN wrote:
  • Eternal_Freedom wrote:OK, I'll bite. The SW galaxy cannot be significantly denser than the Milky Way, for the simple reason that the starfields we see are not significantly denser than ones we might see from the ISS in Earth orbit.
    I'm not sure that this is conclusive. The distance between two stars further away from the observer can appear to be equal to or even smaller than the distance between two not so distant stars.
I really have no clue what you are trying to argue here. Are you saying that the angular distance (how many degrees apart they are in the night sky) of two stars can be the same while physical distance is different? If so, then yes they can, though that is true for anything in the sky.

However, my point is that if the SW galaxy were denser, then it woudl apply in all three dimensions, not just the apparent two dimensions we get when looking at the stars. With a more dense galaxy, average separation is reduced, so you get a higher concentration of stars per square degree of sky. The starfields we see across all six SW films are roughly similar to what we would see from Earth orbit.

Ergo, average stellar separation and stellar density in the SW galaxy is not significantly different from the Milky Way. So it isn't a "denser" galaxy. However, you could still argue that the SW galaxy is smaller than the MW, but I don't think that holds either, the map/image we see of the SW galaxy and two companions in AOTC is consistent with a roughly MW sized spiral or barred spiral galaxy. It could be perhaps ~20% bigger or smaller than the Milky Way, but even that is not going to significantly change hyperdrive speeds and so forth. Not drastically anyway.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Purple wrote:Distance can be inferred from other sources such as the fact that the empire with their supposedly super advanced technology could not track them easily. We can right now using the technology we have on hand track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system. So I feel it reasonable to assume that the empire could as well. Thus even if we assume all imperial ships at Hoth were disabled by the Ion cannon our heroes have to have traveled much more than that in order to get out of sensor range and not be intercepted by a single well aimed jump. So at the very least we have several light years as a minimal value for that.
    • No direct evidence - only inferences with a lot of presumptions and yet unproven claims.

      Which evidence is there that the Empire has "super advanced technology"?

      Which evidence it there that we can track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
            • If you can provide evidence: What is needed to do this? How large has a dish of a observatory to be to enable one to track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
      Which evidence is there that the Empire has on their ships sensors that could track the engine burns of probes at the edges of a solar system? How big are these sensors?

      Which evidence is there that the engines of the Millennium Falcon has burns as the engines of a probe at the edge of a solar system?

      Which evidence is there that a Star Destroyer could find the Millennium Falcon with their sensors - when in Episode V they were not able to follow it with their sensors when it flew into an asteroid field and were not able to find it in this asteroid field and had to bomb them out?

      Is there any evidence for any accomplishments of imperial sensors?
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Purple »

WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the Empire has "super advanced technology"?
Well they can communicate over huge distances using a FLT communication device. And any communication device is by definition also a sensor.
Which evidence it there that we can track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
To quote one of my favorite websites "There is no stealth in space". I suggest you read it since it's really interesting and I can't cover it all right here. But I'll pull up a few quotes:
The Space Shuttle's much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt. And even a puny ship using ion drive to thrust at a measly 1/1000 of a g could be spotted at one astronomical unit.
As of 2013, the Voyager 1 space probe is about 18 billion kilometers away from Terra and its radio signal is a pathetic 20 watts (or about as dim as the light bulb in your refrigerator). But as faint as it is, the Green Bank telescope can pick it out from the background noise in one second flat.
etc. etc. etc.
If you can provide evidence: What is needed to do this? How large has a dish of a observatory to be to enable one to track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
Admittedly our current technology seems as if it limits us to large facilities. But a huge part of this is because of the huge insulator that is our atmosphere. We could get much, much better results from much smaller equipment if only it was in space. Ergo the Hubble Space Telescope. And I do believe that last time I checked the star destroyer was sitting in space.
Which evidence is there that the Empire has on their ships sensors that could track the engine burns of probes at the edges of a solar system? How big are these sensors?
The fact that we should assume, unless stated otherwise that any setting that has technology massively superior to our own (as demonstrated by various things) should at the very least have access to 20th century technology. If you have a laser sword chances are you can make a light bulb.
Which evidence is there that the engines of the Millennium Falcon has burns as the engines of a probe at the edge of a solar system?
Well we do see visible engine plumes so we know there should be a heat output. We also know it can reach escape velocity using its engines. So we have a minimum power output, far outweighing anything we put in space. And I think that I won't be stretching things too far if assumed that given the situation they would have in fact used those engines to try and accelerate away as much as they can.
Which evidence is there that a Star Destroyer could find the Millennium Falcon with their sensors - when in Episode V they were not able to follow it with their sensors when it flew into an asteroid field and were not able to find it in this asteroid field and had to bomb them out?
We have no idea about the composition of the asteroid field so we can't make any definitive conclusions from this example. However I think it's reasonably safe to assume that thermal imaging would be infective once the engines are shut down and the falcon lands within a probably hot living creature as it did.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the Empire has "super advanced technology"?
Well they can communicate over huge distances using a FLT communication device. And any communication device is by definition also a sensor.
  • Yes and No.

    My cell phone is able to detect the radio waves coming from the next station, but it is not able to detect a person standing next to me let alone a person in the next room.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence it there that we can track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
To quote one of my favorite websites "There is no stealth in space". I suggest you read it since it's really interesting and I can't cover it all right here. [...]
  • Thank you.

    The Green Bank Telescope is the world's largest fully steerable radio telescope. It's dish has a diameter of 100 meters.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:If you can provide evidence: What is needed to do this? How large has a dish of a observatory to be to enable one to track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
Admittedly our current technology seems as if it limits us to large facilities. But a huge part of this is because of the huge insulator that is our atmosphere. We could get much, much better results from much smaller equipment if only it was in space. Ergo the Hubble Space Telescope. And I do believe that last time I checked the star destroyer was sitting in space.
  • There is a difference between the Hubble Space Telescope detecting stars and whole galaxies - and detecting engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.

    As far as I know the Hubble Space Telescope is not able to detect the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.

    Furthermore there is the question of delay. Signals the Hubble Space Telescope is detecting are several (thousand if not million) years old. How useful could it be for the Empire to know that a ship was at the edge of a star system half an hour ago? Light needs round about 45 minutes from Sun to Jupiter and more than an hour to reach Saturn. If the tactical usefulness is so limited, it is easy to imagine that the Empire does not invests much effort into enabling their ships to detect even the smallest emissions from distances that are too far away to be able to detect such emissions fast enough to be be able to react in time.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the Empire has on their ships sensors that could track the engine burns of probes at the edges of a solar system? How big are these sensors?
The fact that we should assume, unless stated otherwise that any setting that has technology massively superior to our own (as demonstrated by various things) should at the very least have access to 20th century technology. If you have a laser sword chances are you can make a light bulb.
  • I do not doubt that the Empire has at least access to 20th century technology.

    What I want you to prove is that they have sensors on their ships which allow them to track a ship over great distances.

    20th century technology is not able to do that and as far as I know we have no evidence that this happened in the movies. Quite the contrary: In Episode IV and in Episode II they had to use homing bacons to allow them to follow ships.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the engines of the Millennium Falcon has burns as the engines of a probe at the edge of a solar system?
Well we do see visible engine plumes so we know there should be a heat output. We also know it can reach escape velocity using its engines. So we have a minimum power output, far outweighing anything we put in space.
  • The question still is if the Empire has sensors on their Star Destroyers that can detect these emissions.
Purple wrote:And I think that I won't be stretching things too far if assumed that given the situation they would have in fact used those engines to try and accelerate away as much as they can.
  • This is not conclusive. If the Empire has such sensors and if the Millennium Falcon wants to hide - as they can not escape without their hyper drive - it is only logical to assume that they try to not cause energy spikes from which they would know that the Empire could detect them.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that a Star Destroyer could find the Millennium Falcon with their sensors - when in Episode V they were not able to follow it with their sensors when it flew into an asteroid field and were not able to find it in this asteroid field and had to bomb them out?
We have no idea about the composition of the asteroid field so we can't make any definitive conclusions from this example.
  • Okay. I find this argumentation a little bit funny as usually it is argued - when one wants to prove the fire power demonstrated in that asteroid field or the resilience of Star Destroyers when hit by asteroids in this field - that we have to assume that these are at least "normal" asteroids.
Purple wrote:However I think it's reasonably safe to assume that thermal imaging would be infective once the engines are shut down and the falcon lands within a probably hot living creature as it did.
  • In that case the Empire should at least detect the heat of the living creature and should conclude, that if they can not detect any other thermal signatures in the asteroid field, that the Millennium Falcon is hiding there.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

WATCH-MAN wrote:
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the Empire has "super advanced technology"?
Well they can communicate over huge distances using a FLT communication device. And any communication device is by definition also a sensor.
Yes and No.

My cell phone is able to detect the radio waves coming from the next station, but it is not able to detect a person standing next to me let alone a person in the next room.
You're misunderstanding, and trying to reply with a silly analogy that's over-simplified.. If we used the phone's equipment in the right way, we could use it as a crude radar set. The point of the "any comms system is a sensor" statement is that active sensors work by emitting something and catching a reflection off a target. Since a comms system sends something to a target and receives information in the same way, it can be used as a sensor.

Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:If you can provide evidence: What is needed to do this? How large has a dish of a observatory to be to enable one to track the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system?
Admittedly our current technology seems as if it limits us to large facilities. But a huge part of this is because of the huge insulator that is our atmosphere. We could get much, much better results from much smaller equipment if only it was in space. Ergo the Hubble Space Telescope. And I do believe that last time I checked the star destroyer was sitting in space.
There is a difference between the Hubble Space Telescope detecting stars and whole galaxies - and detecting engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.

As far as I know the Hubble Space Telescope is not able to detect the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.

Furthermore there is the question of delay. Signals the Hubble Space Telescope is detecting are several (thousand if not million) years old. How useful could it be for the Empire to know that a ship was at the edge of a star system half an hour ago? Light needs round about 45 minutes from Sun to Jupiter and more than an hour to reach Saturn. If the tactical usefulness is so limited, it is easy to imagine that the Empire does not invests much effort into enabling their ships to detect even the smallest emissions from distances that are too far away to be able to detect such emissions fast enough to be be able to react in time.
Again you're missing the point. Purple bringing up the Hubble was a way to demonstrate that much greater sensor resolution is available in space compared to the ground. The Hubble has a 2.4m main mirror and optics from the late 80's, both of which have been far surpassed by larger ground-based telescopes, and yet because it's in orbit and as no atmosphere in the way, it can still stay competitive with newer instruments in terms of image quality and so forth.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that the Empire has on their ships sensors that could track the engine burns of probes at the edges of a solar system? How big are these sensors?
The fact that we should assume, unless stated otherwise that any setting that has technology massively superior to our own (as demonstrated by various things) should at the very least have access to 20th century technology. If you have a laser sword chances are you can make a light bulb.
I do not doubt that the Empire has at least access to 20th century technology.

What I want you to prove is that they have sensors on their ships which allow them to track a ship over great distances.

20th century technology is not able to do that and as far as I know we have no evidence that this happened in the movies. Quite the contrary: In Episode IV and in Episode II they had to use homing beacons to allow them to follow ships.
No, they had to use tracking beacons to keep track of ships travelling across the galaxy, which is a fuckload further than across a solar system. However, ANH shows that the Death Star was able to detect the Falcon when she arrived in the Alderaan debris field and the DS was far enough away to appear as a small moon.

There is a display screen in the Endor bunker showing the Rebel fleet approaching in hyperspace, Leia tells them to hurry and set the charges because "The Fleet will be here any moment." That's one instance each of long-range sensors and hyperspace sensors and your homing beacons comment is nothing but a red herring.
Purple wrote:
WATCH-MAN wrote:Which evidence is there that a Star Destroyer could find the Millennium Falcon with their sensors - when in Episode V they were not able to follow it with their sensors when it flew into an asteroid field and were not able to find it in this asteroid field and had to bomb them out?
We have no idea about the composition of the asteroid field so we can't make any definitive conclusions from this example.
Okay. I find this argumentation a little bit funny as usually it is argued - when one wants to prove the fire power demonstrated in that asteroid field or the resilience of Star Destroyers when hit by asteroids in this field - that we have to assume that these are at least "normal" asteroids.
We assume they are "normal" asteroids to make the calculations possible - you simply can't derive an estimate for firepower by stating the material that gets blown up is unknown.

However, we know that the asteroid field impedes at least some forms of communication, as Vader orders Executor to leave the asteroid field to get a clear transmission. We know from the real world that things that impede Radar also impedes radios that use the same or similar frequencies, so it is reasonable to assume that sensors were impeded as well.
Purple wrote:However I think it's reasonably safe to assume that thermal imaging would be infective once the engines are shut down and the falcon lands within a probably hot living creature as it did.
In that case the Empire should at least detect the heat of the living creature and should conclude, that if they can not detect any other thermal signatures in the asteroid field, that the Millennium Falcon is hiding there.
Actually I would argue that the space slug is probably cold blooded, given that it lives in space and all. As for "detecting the heat of the living creature" we don't know that there was only one creature. Also, the slug was buried inside one of the larger asteroids. With no atmospheric convection any heat it emits will be absorbed by the giant asteroid it lives in, making it very difficult to detect.

There. Now, Watch-Man, how about replying to my arguments on stellar densities and so on? Or are you just going to ignore anything that contradicts your views because you "don't want to debate whether my impression is correct or not."
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Purple »

WATCH-MAN wrote:Yes and No.

My cell phone is able to detect the radio waves coming from the next station, but it is not able to detect a person standing next to me let alone a person in the next room.
And yet the same technology used to create the cellphone by necessity requires you to have the ability to build a radar system.
Thank you.

The Green Bank Telescope is the world's largest fully steerable radio telescope. It's dish has a diameter of 100 meters.
And that's for a telescope that has to look out from a planetary surface through the huge insulator that is the atmosphere. Imagine what it could do if it didn't have that problem.
Purple wrote:There is a difference between the Hubble Space Telescope detecting stars and whole galaxies - and detecting engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.
Indeed. The engine plume is much brighter all things considered.
As far as I know the Hubble Space Telescope is not able to detect the engine burns of probes at the edges of our solar system.
Considering the inverse square law it most likely could. And if not (which I doubt) our other modern telescopes can do so from much worse conditions (the surface of a planet).
How useful could it be for the Empire to know that a ship was at the edge of a star system half an hour ago?
Very useful. Not only do they have FTL capabilities to pursue and maybe intercept that ship (and it stands to reason that top level military equipment will be superior to a civilian freighter) but they can call in reinforcements to head it off.
I do not doubt that the Empire has at least access to 20th century technology.

What I want you to prove is that they have sensors on their ships which allow them to track a ship over great distances.
Your two sentences are contradictory. Pick one.
20th century technology is not able to do that and as far as I know we have no evidence that this happened in the movies. Quite the contrary: In Episode IV and in Episode II they had to use homing bacons to allow them to follow ships.
The key word here is intent. The whole point of those instances was to try and get the falcon to lead the empire to the rebel base. And for that you want to follow it discretely. That means keeping the large and thus easily detected star destroyers well out of sensor range. The logic is the same as using GPS beacons to track a car as opposed to having a squad car trailing it.
The question still is if the Empire has sensors on their Star Destroyers that can detect these emissions.
And assuming 20th century technology they should be able to.
This is not conclusive. If the Empire has such sensors and if the Millennium Falcon wants to hide - as they can not escape without their hyper drive - it is only logical to assume that they try to not cause energy spikes from which they would know that the Empire could detect them.
Them breathing is an energy spike. Space is, just to remind you really cold and empty. A starship with functioning electrical systems radiates heat and other forms of energy outward just by functioning. The only way they could do any sort of hiding was to shut everything off and pretend to be rubble (like they did at a later point). Running at half speed won't help you much at all because the inverse square law dictates distance is far more important than your energy output. In fact, it will make things worse as your only alternative to hiding is to get out of enemy sensor range before they power up to give chase.
Okay. I find this argumentation a little bit funny as usually it is argued - when one wants to prove the fire power demonstrated in that asteroid field or the resilience of Star Destroyers when hit by asteroids in this field - that we have to assume that these are at least "normal" asteroids.
Individually yes but the field it self is certainly abnormal in several factors none the least its density. Under such condition the tactics they did use (hiding in a hole and powering down) are going to be reasonably effective.

Also, I do not recall there being any mention in the movies of the empire being unable to track the falcon through the asteroids. If I recall correctly the quote is that they wont be able to "follow" them into the field. As in the star destroyers won't be able to dodge the asteroids if they try giving direct pursuit. And sure enough later on when they do follow them into the field the big ships do get hit and damaged.
In that case the Empire should at least detect the heat of the living creature and should conclude, that if they can not detect any other thermal signatures in the asteroid field, that the Millennium Falcon is hiding there.
Or alternatively there could be any number of those worms in there. Or there could be none and the worm it self could be cold blooded, it's body acting as an insulator to conceal the ship. We genuinely do not know enough to comment on it.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • I'm afraid that we are on a tangent that leads away from the topic of that thread.

    The question was, which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars Galaxy we still have.

    Purple claimed that the sensor range of a Star Destroyer had to be several light years and as the Millennium Falcon was able to get out of sensor range without being intercepted, the distance the Millennium Falcon had to travel had to be at least several light years.

    His whole argument is based on his assumption that the sensor range of a Star Destroyer had to be several light years.

    I do not dispute that the Empire has sensors at least as good as all we have today.

    I do not dispute that the Empire is able to detect the electro-magnetic emissions of e.g. the engines of a ship from its vicinity.

    I do not even dispute that the Empire may be able to detect the electro-magnetic emissions of e.g. the engines of a ship from distances from which it needs minutes or even hours for these emissions to reach the imperial ship.

    Insofar range isn't the important aspect. The telescopes of today do not really have a range limit. It's more a question how good their resolution is, how sensitive they are and how old the emissions are they are detecting.

    But - and with that ignoring all the tangents - there is - as far as I know - no evidence that a Star Destroyer has sensors which can detect electro-magnetic emissions faster than with light speed.

    Insofar I do not dispute that a Star Destroyer could detect the emissions an engine of a ship - a light year away from the Star Destroyer - has made. But the Star Destroyer can only detect these emissions a year after the emissions were caused as it needs that time for the emissions to reach the Star Destroyer. In the meantime the Star Destroyer probably isn't any longer where it was when the emissions were caused and what caused the emissions isn't where it was when it caused the emissions.

    If nobody can provide canonical evidence that a Star Destroyer is equipped with faster than light sensors, I'd like to end the discussion of that tangential aspect.

    The only still relevant argument seems to me what Eternal_Freedom has said:
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:There is a display screen in the Endor bunker showing the Rebel fleet approaching in hyperspace, Leia tells them to hurry and set the charges because "The Fleet will be here any moment." That's one instance each of long-range sensors and hyperspace sensors [...].
    • If that could be regarded as evidence for the existence of faster than light sensors, it would be relevant - although it does not proves that Star Destroyers are equipped with such a technology.

      But first thing first.

      I would need evidence that the mentioned display really depicted the approaching rebel fleet in real time.

      As I'm sure that Eternal_Freedom knows the rule "Correlation does not imply causation", I'm sure that I do not have to explain to him that the fact that the display has shown something and Leia said "The Fleet will be here any moment" does not prove that the information depicted by the display caused Leia to say this and thus the display could only have shown the approaching rebel fleet. Leia knew the time plan of the Rebel fleet and could have said what she said without any impetus by the display whatever it depicted.

      Insofar I expect evidence that the display really depicted the approaching rebel fleet in real time.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Captain Seafort »

WATCH-MAN wrote:If nobody can provide canonical evidence that a Star Destroyer is equipped with faster than light sensors
ESB. Veers reports to Vader that the fleet has exited hyperspace, states that part of the Hoth VI is protected by an energy field, and that said field can deflect any bombardment. Vader complains that this means that the rebels had been alerted to their presence, and places the blame on Ozzel, saying he "came out of lightspeed too close to the system". This means that the fleet must be outside the system. The orbit of Nepture (the innermost point that can be considered the edge of our solar system) is about 4 light hours from the Sun, Hoth VI must be approximately the same distance from its star as the Earth is from ours as it's within the habitable zone (barely), and so the Imperial fleet must be at least several light hours from Hoth VI. Since Veers reported the fleet's exit from hyperspace at the same time he reported the existence of the shield, the two events must only be a few minutes apart. This would not be possible without FTL sensors. QED.
User avatar
Boeing 757
Padawan Learner
Posts: 338
Joined: 2007-10-30 05:48pm
Location: Εν ενί γαλαξία μένω, ον συ ου δύνασαι ευρείν χωρίς διαστημικού οχήματος.

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Boeing 757 »

I reckon that it is safe to wager that the Star Wars Galaxy is roughly about the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, and for all we know it may be either larger by an unknown degree. I would be interested though to find out how many worlds are colonized. Before the reordering of canon by Disney, the EU and and older canon sources supported the notion of a million member systems with millions of other colony-worlds. Those have now obviously been done away with. It is definitely certain per the films that there are tens of thousands of worlds spread throughout the whole galactic disk, at the very least.

On a somewhat related note (not meaning to derail the thread): the civilization that constitutes the Galactic Republic and Empire has at its disposition extragalactic travel, as witnessed both in AOTC and TESB...and not only the government, but private organizations. That is actually very impressive.
Omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium.

Kritisches Denken schützt vor Illusionen.

Παν μέτρον άριστον τῷ κρατίστῳ.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Captain Seafort wrote:ESB. Veers reports to Vader that the fleet has exited hyperspace, states that part of the Hoth VI is protected by an energy field, and that said field can deflect any bombardment. Vader complains that this means that the rebels had been alerted to their presence, and places the blame on Ozzel, saying he "came out of lightspeed too close to the system". This means that the fleet must be outside the system. The orbit of Nepture (the innermost point that can be considered the edge of our solar system) is about 4 light hours from the Sun, Hoth VI must be approximately the same distance from its star as the Earth is from ours as it's within the habitable zone (barely), and so the Imperial fleet must be at least several light hours from Hoth VI. Since Veers reported the fleet's exit from hyperspace at the same time he reported the existence of the shield, the two events must only be a few minutes apart. This would not be possible without FTL sensors. QED.
    • Who says that when Darth Vader said "system", he meant "star system"? He could have meant as well the set of gravitationally bound non-stellar objects - e.g. moons - in orbit around the planet Hoth.

      They knew after all on which planet the probe found the Rebels.

      And what sense would it make to "move out of light-speed" four light hours away from their destination if they then had to fly to their destination with a speed slower than light? They would have needed hours to reach the planet Hoth and would have been detected a fortiori.

      Furthermore, in the scene before the energy field is reported to Darth Vader, we see the imperial fleet in normal space with the planet Hoth in immediate vicinity - less than a few light seconds away.
      It was my impression that Darth Vader was displeased with Admiral Ozzel. That was already indicated when Darth Vader interrupted Admiral Ozzel when he tried to reason with him about the probability that the findings of the probe meant that the Rebels are on Hoth. It was again indicated when Darth Vader interrupted Admiral Veers, who wanted to explain Admiral Ozzels motives, to describe Admiral Ozzel as clumsy and stupid. It was again indicated as Darth Vader said to Admiral Ozzel that this was the last time he failed him - implying that Admiral Ozzel had displeased Darth Vader already at other times.

      If it was a tactical mistake to "move out of light-speed" so close to the planet may have been irrelevant. Darth Vader was displeased with the fact that the Rebels had an energy shield erected and let his frustration out on Admiral Ozzel as he didn't liked him and had him on his blacklist anyway.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Boeing 757 wrote:I reckon that it is safe to wager that the Star Wars Galaxy is roughly about the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, and for all we know it may be either larger by an unknown degree. I would be interested though to find out how many worlds are colonized. Before the reordering of canon by Disney, the EU and and older canon sources supported the notion of a million member systems with millions of other colony-worlds. Those have now obviously been done away with. It is definitely certain per the films that there are tens of thousands of worlds spread throughout the whole galactic disk, at the very least.

    On a somewhat related note (not meaning to derail the thread): the civilization that constitutes the Galactic Republic and Empire has at its disposition extragalactic travel, as witnessed both in AOTC and TESB...and not only the government, but private organizations. That is actually very impressive.
    • The purpose of that thread is not to find out your opinion as this may have been tainted by the EU.

      The purpose of that thread is to find objective evidence in the still valid canon for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.
    Boeing 757 wrote:I reckon that it is safe to wager that the Star Wars Galaxy is roughly about the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, and for all we know it may be either larger by an unknown degree. I would be interested though to find out how many worlds are colonized. Before the reordering of canon by Disney, the EU and and older canon sources supported the notion of a million member systems with millions of other colony-worlds. Those have now obviously been done away with. It is definitely certain per the films that there are tens of thousands of worlds spread throughout the whole galactic disk, at the very least.

    On a somewhat related note (not meaning to derail the thread): the civilization that constitutes the Galactic Republic and Empire has at its disposition extragalactic travel, as witnessed both in AOTC and TESB...and not only the government, but private organizations. That is actually very impressive.
    • The purpose of that thread is not to find out your opinion as this may have been tainted by the EU.

      If you make such a claim, please provide evidence for it.

      If you want to claim that at the end of Episode VI the Star Wars galaxy was seen and thus the Rebel fleet had to be outside of the galaxy, I expect you to provide evidence that what was seen was indeed a galaxy. According to Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics, it can't be a galaxy [Star Wars - Technical Commentaries - Astrophysical Concerns - Rendezvous-point spectacle].
            • Image
      If you want to claim that the planet Kamino is outside of the galaxy, that the Rishi Maze is a dwarf satellite galaxy and that Kamino lies south of it, I expect you to provide evidence for this.

      If you want to claim that in the Jedi archives Obi Wan pointed to what appears to be a galaxy in the background, I expect evidence that from his perspective his finger pointed to this galaxy.
            • Image
      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.

      In the Wookipedia entry about Kamino it is written in the chapter Behind the scenes that Obi Wan pointed toward the Unknown Regions, where no known systems are located.

      My impression was that he pointed to the edge of the screen to activate the zooming back routine. He was already there locking for Kamino. When he wanted to show Jocasta Nu the space where he assumed Kamino to be, he simply zoomed back to that part. That seems to me to make more sense as to believe that he pointed with his finger at the display when it still depicted three galaxies to show Jocasta Nu where exactly Kamino is supposed to be. With the size of this display, depicting three galaxies, you can not point with a human finger to anything and hope to be able to distinguish anything meaningful regarding an individual star or planet.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • After watching the scene in the Jedi archives again, I take back my commentary that Obi Wan pointed to the edge of the screen to activate a function.
    But the rest of my objection still stands - especially as he draws a circle with his finger before pointing upwards. This makes it even more absurd that he could have hoped to be able to distinguish anything meaningful regarding an individual star or planet.

    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.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

Right, Watch-Man, we need to talk. Are you going to answer any of my earlier comments or not? If not, then shut the fuck up.

Also, I find it utterly hilarious that you're demanding evidence for every little thing with no supposition allowed, but you're whole thread is based on your "impression" that the SW is much smaller and/or denser than the Milky Way. How about you post some canon evidence that this is so?

Oh, wait, there is no such evidence. All we have to go on is logical inference, which leads us to assume it's roughly the same size as the Milky Way, as I've stated (and you've failed to answer). You are the one making the claim that it is small or otherwise peculiar, so put up some actual evidence for it (no "impressions" please) or go the fuck away.

Also, what is with you adding the list/list bits to every one of your posts? It's irritating as hell when I have to quote you.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by Adam Reynolds »

WATCH-MAN wrote: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.
You are attacking others for using the EU and you are using Wookiepedia? The reason that Wookipedia refereed to the Unknown Regions is that they were trying to Timothy Zahn's idea of the Unknown Regions into canon. Something that is clearly impossible when in the same scene the Jedi librarian refers to the opposite, that if a planet does not appear in the Jedi navigation archives, it cannot exist. Unless it was deleted.

As for Kamino's location, the idea that is is beyond the edge of the galaxy is indicated twice. First by the point that Obi-Wan indicates and secondly by the fact that Dex referrs to it as "beyond the Outer Rim, about twelve Parsecs beyond the Rishi Maze." That is two corroborating data points that indicate this fact. This also supports the idea that the Outer Rim is a literal statement.
Who says that when Darth Vader said "system", he meant "star system"? He could have meant as well the set of gravitationally bound non-stellar objects - e.g. moons - in orbit around the planet Hoth.
Agreed on this point. Especially since the beginning of the scene shows the Imperial fleet in orbit around the planet.

But a better indication of FTL sensors comes from ANH. If it were impossible to find enemies in Hyperspace, then the scene in which Han swaggers into the cargo hold boasting that he had lost their Imperial pursuit would have happened almost immediately. Which makes no sense given that they arrive immediately after this scene. This is also backed up by several cases from Clone Wars, including Jedi Crash, in which the navicomputer is dead and yet they can still detect that a star is in front of them. FTL sensors are canon and can even detect inert objects like stars.

The reason that it is difficult to detect ships coming out of hyperspace is because of their relative speed. By the time the sensor pulses return, the ships have already dropped out of hyperspace. But Clone Wars again provides evidence in favor of this. We see examples of the guns on Republic Venator class vessels being trained on targets before those targets appear.

As for the point about the Empire and Obi-Wan requiring tracking devices. This is because of the head start they were giving their enemies. Obi-Wan needed the time it would take him to get to his fighter and begin his pursuit. Not to mention the weakness that he was pursuing in a one man starfighter, something that obviously will be limited in its sensor abilities. As for the Death Star, they could have pursued directly with something smaller and faster, but Han had already indicated that he could avoid Imperial pursuit in hyperspace. It was the prudent thing to use a tracking device to avoid that problem occurring again.

Finally, as for the distance from the Anoat system to Bespin, you are assuming that the trip from Hoth to Anoat was sublight. There is no reason for this to be the case. If it were, then there would be no reason for Han to indicate their current position, as if it had changed. For all we know, Bespin is in the Anoat system. Perhaps a distance of weeks at STL, but not a different star system entirely. And even if this distance were smaller, there would be no reason to assume that this would apply to the entire galaxy. The Hoth system has an unusually dense and large asteroid field. This doesn't mean it must apply to every asteroid field in the Star Wars galaxy.
Eternal_Freedom wrote:Also, I find it utterly hilarious that you're demanding evidence for every little thing with no supposition allowed, but you're whole thread is based on your "impression" that the SW is much smaller and/or denser than the Milky Way. How about you post some canon evidence that this is so?
Frankly, I don't believe he is interested in deriving real numbers. He is interested in causing Star Wars to appear as weak as possible. This came out of a thread on the ST vs SW forum in which he was trying to argue that the abilities of SW are overstated because of the EU. Never mind that the overwhelming majority of Mike Wong's arguments were based on the films alone.

Look at his point in that thread about refusing to admit that the Outer Rim was literal.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Eternal_Freedom wrote:Right, Watch-Man, we need to talk. Are you going to answer any of my earlier comments or not? If not, then shut the fuck up.
    • If I'm not mistaken, I have answered any of your earlier comments. You get quoted in two of my posts [1] and [2]. Insofar the claim that I haven't answered any of your earlier comments is baseless if not an outright lie.

      But it is right that I have decided that I won't continue the discussion of sensors as that - as the discussion went - was only a detraction from the purpose of that thread. But even then I quoted you again when I informed you about my decision, admitting that a claim you made was relevant as if it were true, it would prove something important for the purpose of that thread. That's why I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that the display in the bunker on Endor depicted the approaching rebel fleet.
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:Also, I find it utterly hilarious that you're demanding evidence for every little thing with no supposition allowed, but you're whole thread is based on your "impression" that the SW is much smaller and/or denser than the Milky Way. How about you post some canon evidence that this is so?
    • You are allowed to find that "utterly hilarious". The thing is that I do not claim any size for the Star Wars galaxy.

      I do not claim that it is smaller and/or denser than the Milky Way. I have only said that this was my impression when watching the movies. And I have given the reasons for this impression in my very first post in that thread. But that does not mean that I claim to know how big the Star Wars galaxy is or that it is smaller and/or denser than the Milky Way. I know that first impressions can be wrong as they are subjective and that it is important to see the objective evidence and only then form an opinion based on the available evidence and not on what you'd like to be true.

      In this thread I only want to know which canonical evidence there is for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.

      If you can provide canonical evidence that the Star Wars galaxy is larger than the Milky Way, I'll gladly accept this as this is exactly what I'm looking for: Canonical evidence and not opinions tainted by the EU.
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:Oh, wait, there is no such evidence.
    • That's questionable.

      If that were the case, that thread would be done.
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:All we have to go on is logical inference, which leads us to assume it's roughly the same size as the Milky Way, as I've stated (and you've failed to answer). You are the one making the claim that it is small or otherwise peculiar, so put up some actual evidence for it (no "impressions" please) or go the fuck away.
    • See - your are even unable to understand what you are reading - but you are speaking of logic. That's "utterly hilarious".

      I have not claimed that I know anything about the Star Wars galaxy - as I'm still locking for any evidence so that I can form an opinion beyond my first impression. Because I know that first impressions can be wrong as they are subjective. That is - as I have already explained to you - why I do not want to discuss any impressions but objective evidence - if there is any.
    Eternal_Freedom wrote:Also, what is with you adding the list/list bits to every one of your posts? It's irritating as hell when I have to quote you.
    That question is irrelevant and only detracts from the purpose of that thread.
WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 410
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Post by WATCH-MAN »

  • Adamskywalker007 wrote:You are attacking others for using the EU and you are using Wookiepedia?
    • Where have I attacked anyone for using the EU. In this thread I'm looking for canonical evidence. The EU is - as far as I know - not canon any more.

      And I have not used Wookipedia to prove any facts about the movies. I have referred to it to show that the interpretation of something shown in the movies is disputed. With that I only wanted to show that it is necessary to provide evidence; that a claim is not enough.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:The reason that Wookipedia refereed to the Unknown Regions is that they were trying to Timothy Zahn's idea of the Unknown Regions into canon. Something that is clearly impossible when in the same scene the Jedi librarian refers to the opposite, that if a planet does not appear in the Jedi navigation archives, it cannot exist. Unless it was deleted.
    • That's irrelevant as it does not change the fact that Wookipedia agrees that Obi Wan did not point to what appears to be a galaxy in the background. Whether the region to which he pointed is called the "Unknown Regions" is totally irrelevant. It is not - according to Wookipedia - the object that appears to be a galaxy in the background.

      And to be clear: I'm not saying that he did not pointed to the object that appears to be a galaxy in the background. I'm saying that I can not decide to which region he pointed as 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.

      That's why I said that the claim that he pointed to the object that appears to be a galaxy in the background is not enough; that this claim has to be proven.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:As for Kamino's location, the idea that is is beyond the edge of the galaxy is indicated twice. First by the point that Obi-Wan indicates and secondly by the fact that Dex referrs to it as "beyond the Outer Rim, about twelve Parsecs beyond the Rishi Maze." That is two corroborating data points that indicate this fact. This also supports the idea that the Outer Rim is a literal statement.
    • The problem is that you are interpreting both event how you want to interpret them.

      As I have explained above: I want to see evidence that Obi Wan pointed to a region outside of the galaxy.

      I do not understand why you are repeating this claim without any evidence when it was already asserted that evidence is needed to prove such a claim.

      The second point is new in this thread and seems to be worth to be scrutinized at the first sight. On the second sight however, it turns out as worthless if you can not provide evidence that the "Outer Rim" means the outer edge of the galaxy.

      Again and only to be clear: I do not claim that it can not mean this. But I'm claiming that it could mean something different too. It could e.g. refer to the Outer Rim of the Republic or to a region beyond explored space or to the Outer Rim of a cluster. What canonical evidence is there that "Outer Rim" means the outer edge of the galaxy?
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:But a better indication of FTL sensors comes from ANH. If it were impossible to find enemies in Hyperspace, then the scene in which Han swaggers into the cargo hold boasting that he had lost their Imperial pursuit would have happened almost immediately. Which makes no sense given that they arrive immediately after this scene.
    • This is not conclusive.

      Many people are boasting their deeds again and again and are fishing for compliments.

      Who says that this wasn't the umpteenth time that he remembered his guests what for a great man he is. After all, the lack of any reply was so conspicuous that even Han noticed it and commented on it.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:This is also backed up by several cases from Clone Wars, including Jedi Crash, in which the navicomputer is dead and yet they can still detect that a star is in front of them.
    • I didn't see that episode.

      Please describe exactly what happened in it. Did they jumped to hyper speed without a navigation computer? Or where they flying in normal space? Did they really detected the star in front of them or did they knew that it was there?

      I'll try to find that episode online - but maybe you can answer my question now.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:FTL sensors are canon and can even detect inert objects like stars.
    • That remains to be seen.

      You have made only a claim without providing any evidence. It is unknown what exactly happened in the episode "Jedi Crash".

      Furthermore this episode is only one case, whereas you spoke of several cases.

      What are the other cases?
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:The reason that it is difficult to detect ships coming out of hyperspace is because of their relative speed. By the time the sensor pulses return, the ships have already dropped out of hyperspace. But Clone Wars again provides evidence in favor of this. We see examples of the guns on Republic Venator class vessels being trained on targets before those targets appear.
    • Is it so difficult to understand that you have to provide evidence for your claims.

      From which examples are you speaking?
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:As for the point about the Empire and Obi-Wan requiring tracking devices. This is because of the head start they were giving their enemies. Obi-Wan needed the time it would take him to get to his fighter and begin his pursuit. Not to mention the weakness that he was pursuing in a one man starfighter, something that obviously will be limited in its sensor abilities. As for the Death Star, they could have pursued directly with something smaller and faster, but Han had already indicated that he could avoid Imperial pursuit in hyperspace. It was the prudent thing to use a tracking device to avoid that problem occurring again.
    • That point is not relevant for the purpose of that thread.

      At least you failed to explain why your explanation is supposed to be relevant for the question if there is canonical evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:Finally, as for the distance from the Anoat system to Bespin, you are assuming that the trip from Hoth to Anoat was sublight. There is no reason for this to be the case. If it were, then there would be no reason for Han to indicate their current position, as if it had changed. For all we know, Bespin is in the Anoat system. Perhaps a distance of weeks at STL, but not a different star system entirely. And even if this distance were smaller, there would be no reason to assume that this would apply to the entire galaxy.
    • I admit that this is possible and a reasonable explanation. I can life with Bespin being only a planet in the Anoat system. But that leaves the question open how the Millennium Falcon could reach the Anoat system from the Hoth system without its hyper drive.

      And it leaves the question if there is any evidence for it.

      According to the EU, Bespin is a planet in the Bespin system. That shows that several interpretations are possible what makes it necessary to provide evidence when claiming that only the chosen interpretation can be right.
    Adamskywalker007 wrote:The Hoth system has an unusually dense and large asteroid field. This doesn't mean it must apply to every asteroid field in the Star Wars galaxy.
    • Yes ... what do you want to say with that obviousness?
Locked