StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2015-10-06 10:56pm**

Lord Revan wrote:Watch-man the assertion of a dense dwarf galaxy is comes from pretty much everything you've posted so far, starting from the OP, You've assumed that the SW galaxy is dense dwarf galaxy though you've yet to show single evidence to support that claim, not a single thing.

basically your argument and don't try to pretend you didn't make one, has no evidence to back it up. And as Elheru Aran pointed out Queue's opinion matters alot as it repesents the opinion of the board staff. like it or not but you've been called to back your claims.

EDIT:I'm not trying to play backseat mod here but rather I'm trying to advice Watch-man how to get past this with honor, whether he takes my advice or not is up to him.
- Would you kindly refer to any post in which I have claimed that the Star Wars galaxy is a dense dwarf galaxy.
  
  Please show where I have made any claims about the Star Wars galaxy at all.
  
  Do not only claim that this is my assertion.
  
  Provide evidence that I have claimed anything about the dimension of the Star Wars galaxy only once.

Posted: **2015-10-06 11:06pm**

Lagmonster wrote:Distance could be noteworthy if the "kessel run", whatever it is, turned out to be significant because of dangerous obstacles.

Imagine, for example, that to get from point A to point B, you had to go through a field of lit torches, with the torches more densely packed in the middle than on the outside. You could get to point B by going around, where the torches are thinly packed, or you could take a more dangerous, but much shorter route, through the middle where the torches are densely packed. Obviously, the shorter route gets you there quicker, but to pass through the heat unharmed, you need to move much, much faster than if you were weaving carefully around the obstacles.

It requires a bit of imagination, but you can imagine Han's boast as something that makes sense.

This is more or less the old EU explanation... and I honestly think the main reason anyone came up with it was because there's this reluctance to accept that Han really is, or was as of the start of A New Hope, a criminal, drug-runner, scoundrel, and (naturally) liar.

The heart of Han's character arc is his redemption, (re)discovering his idealism and becoming more than just a mercenary. But people like to imagine him as the hero from the beginning- which is where you get stuff like Greedo shooting first... or Han actually meaning it when he boasts about the Kessel Run. Because only a scoundrel would deliberately bullshit a couple of rubes from the fringe of the galaxy in an attempt to play up his skills... and of course Han isn't a scoundrel.

Posted: **2015-10-06 11:37pm**

Esquire wrote:We (the scientific community) do not have perfect knowledge of everything. Definitive statements are never made by scientists; that's why gravity is technically a theory, and always will be. Similarly, it is unacceptable to say that smoking causes lung cancer, although only an idiot or a tobacco lobbyist would dispute the clear link between them. All we can do is say things like "according to the balance of the evidence," "research suggests," and, yes, "it may be considered." The absence of a definitive statement is not evidence for the alternative hypothesis, it's a tacit admission that we don't know everything yet. In this case, Wikipedia is simply following the rules of scientific writing. In this specific case, the sentence "dwarf spiral galaxies... may be considered a subset of low-surface-brightness galaxies" is equivalent to "the astronomical community currently considers dwarf spiral galaxies to be a subset of low-surface-brightness galaxies." As an example, a paper on current political theory might read something like "the Tea Party may be considered a spinoff of the larger Republican Party in the United States."
- I know that English is not my native language - and I believe that everybody is able to see it.
  
  If my understanding of something said in English is wrong, I have no problems if I'm corrected.
  
  But that does not mean that I do not try in the first place to understand what is said in English myself.
  
  If Wikipedia says "may be considered", I try to understand it myself.
  
  You are right that we do not have perfect knowledge of everything.
  
  And still there is a difference if something is considered or something merely may be considered.
  
  And - as far as I know - it is scientific standard that you do not simply ignore dissenting opinions. If there is a dispute going on if dwarf spiral galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies or a subclass of them, it is scientific standard, that this dispute is showed:
  - - - Some consider dwarf spiral galaxies as a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies. They argue that ... [1] Others disagree with that classification as they think that the differences between a dwarf spiral galaxies and low-surface-brightness galaxies are to great, especially as the similarities are homologous but coincidental.[2]
        
        [1] J. M. Schombert, R. A. Pildis, J. A. Eder, A. Oelmer, Jr. (1995). "Dwarf Spirals". Astronomical Journal 110: 2067–2074
        [2] Ben Moore, Neal Katz, George Lake, Alan Dressler, Augustus Oemler (1 February 1996). "Galaxy harassment and the evolution of clusters of galaxies"
  And if it is at least written in the footnote:
  - - - The galaxies may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.[1]
        
        [1] J. M. Schombert, R. A. Pildis, J. A. Eder, A. Oelmer, Jr. (1995). "Dwarf Spirals". Astronomical Journal 110: 2067–2074 - dissenting opinion: Ben Moore, Neal Katz, George Lake, Alan Dressler, Augustus Oemler (1 February 1996). "Galaxy harassment and the evolution of clusters of galaxies"
  Now please explain to me, what exactly do you thing "may by considered" means.
  
  Is there doubt?
  
  Or does it convey total conviction?
  
  Does the whole astronomical community think that dwarf spiral galaxies are a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies?
  
  Or does the whole astronomical community only consider to categorize dwarf spiral galaxies as a a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies?
  
  Or is this only the opinion of some astronomers?
  
  Are there dissenting opinions?
  
  Even if my understanding of the English language is not perfect, I think that this are - regardless of the meaning of "may be considered" - justified questions.
  
  I would ask this questions even in my own language as I simply do not ignore dissenting opinions and want to know it exactly - especially as there is a typical phrase with which I am very familiar: Three scientists - five opinions. I have learned that you can not simply listen to one scientist and believe what he is saying. You have to look at the opinions of all scientists and have to consider their reasons. You have to pounder these reasons, have to look which has the better evidence or the better arguments and thus is able to convince you more - and only then can you form yourself an educated opinion.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:17am**

*sigh* for the love of everything that's holy, just how bloody dishonest can you be Watch-man

Or isn’t it the easiest explanation that the Star Wars galaxy is indeed very small and dense.

that's the last sentence from your OP, very small galaxies are called dwarf galaxies. in every single one of your posts you've treated that idea as irrefutable fact that needs to be disproven, yet you've given us no evidence to think so, none what so ever, in fact you have the gall to get upset when asked to provide evidence. I mean given the time and energy you have to play semantics with everything anyone else here posts surely you have time and energy to provide evidence to back you assertion (I won't call it a claim as that would imply that you were willing to defend it).

You've already been called to provide evidence for your claim by an admin, so really me asking for it isn't really needed but still your assertions and actions are for everyone to see no matter how much your want to pretend that they don't exist when they become inconvient for you. I don't have time to quote every single one of your previous posts and analyse it in detail to "provide evidence" of your actions and quite frankly I don't need to those posts speak for themselves for everyone with a functioning brain.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:39am**

He tried to get around it in his OP by outlining why he got this "impression" that the SW galaxy was small and dense, and then providing us with his annotations in his second post, namely:

WATCH-MAN wrote: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.

I was under the impression (ironic I know) that such blanket statements were frowned upon on SDN? He has, after all, made the claim (his OP stating his "impression") but has then explicitly forbidden us from debating this impression, by asking solely for evidence...and proceeding to nitpick, idly dismiss, or outright misrepresent anything we provide, going so far as to question logical deductions and questioning how much I know of the subject (does that not count as an ad hominem?) and appealing to the authority of Curtis Saxton and using that in an argument, even though by his own rules such logical deductions should be inadmissible.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:59am**

WATCH-MAN wrote: If my understanding of something said in English is wrong, I have no problems if I'm corrected.

But that does not mean that I do not try in the first place to understand what is said in English myself.

If Wikipedia says "may be considered", I try to understand it myself.

Which is commendable. I myself try to read things in those foreign languages I'm familiar with whenever I can, to keep in practice - but I don't go around making semantics arguments in them.

And still there is a difference if something is considered or something merely may be considered.

And - as far as I know - it is scientific standard that you do not simply ignore dissenting opinions. If there is a dispute going on if dwarf spiral galaxies are low-surface-brightness galaxies or a subclass of them, it is scientific standard, that this dispute is showed:

And here we go - there isn't a dissenting opinion, there's you refusing to admit that you don't understand scientific writing styles. Did you even read the papers you cited below? Glancing at the abstracts would have been enough; Schombert, Pildis, Eder, and Oerlmer - the discoverers of dwarf spiral galaxies, mind - describe them as "characterized by faint total luminosities" and "low central surface brightnesses," exhibiting a "combination of small angular size and" - oh, look at that - "low surface brightness." The other paper, which you cited as the dissenting opinion, isn't about galaxy classification at all, but rather focuses on how one type turns into another through galactic-scale collision events.

Some consider dwarf spiral galaxies as a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies. They argue that ... Others disagree with that classification as they think that the differences between a dwarf spiral galaxies and low-surface-brightness galaxies are to great, especially as the similarities are homologous but coincidental.

I assume you have a proper source for this, since it doesn't appear in either of the two paper abstracts (I don't have access to the Harvard astronomy database to read the full papers) or Wikipedia articles you half-cited? Indeed, since my research doesn't turn up any suggestions of a controversy of DSG classification, I request evidence that any such debate actually exists, and you're not simply resorting to further dishonest debating tactics.

And if it is at least written in the footnote:

The galaxies may be considered a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies.

What footnote, where specifically? I see it at the end of the first paragraph of the DSG wiki article, as part of the definition of a dwarf spiral galaxy.

Now please explain to me, what exactly do you thing "may by considered" means.

Is there doubt?

Or does it convey total conviction?

Does the whole astronomical community think that dwarf spiral galaxies are a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies?

Or does the whole astronomical community only consider to categorize dwarf spiral galaxies as a a subclass of low-surface-brightness galaxies?

Or is this only the opinion of some astronomers?

Are there dissenting opinions?

In descending order: as stated above, in scientific writing qualified statements are the norm, and are an admission of humanity's lack of omniscience rather than one of practical doubt, and this one means roughly "astronomers consider DSGs to be a subset of... etc."; there is scientific but not colloquial doubt, and I've explained the difference to you twice already; it conveys confidence in the currently-accepted scientific theory, which is as close to total conviction as anything evidence-based can be; yes, the majority opinion of the astronomical community is that DSGs are a subset of LSBGs; and I don't know, but it's the opinion of their discoverers as well as the majority of experts in the field, which is good enough for me.

Even if my understanding of the English language is not perfect, I think that this are - regardless of the meaning of "may be considered" - justified questions.

They are not, because you could have answered them yourself with a cursory investigation and saved everyone the trouble of reading more groundless speculations. I admit my own research was not especially in-depth, and if your own has turned up differing conclusions I call on you to provide, with direct citations and quotes, a widely-accepted alternative conclusion from a peer-reviewed journal.

I would ask this questions even in my own language as I simply do not ignore dissenting opinions and want to know it exactly - especially as there is a typical phrase with which I am very familiar: Three scientists - five opinions. I have learned that you can not simply listen to one scientist and believe what he is saying. You have to look at the opinions of all scientists and have to consider their reasons. You have to pounder these reasons, have to look which has the better evidence or the better arguments and thus is able to convince you more - and only then can you form yourself an educated opinion.

As above, commendable in theory. The trouble starts when you begin assuming - or should that be 'began assuming?' - that your personal opinion carries more weight than the scientific consensus. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you are not qualified to reject expert opinions in astronomy out of hand. Again, if you have evidence that is compelling enough to do so, I call on you to share it with the rest of us.

And, again, why the list tags? Please answer this question even if you ignore everything else, I'm genuinely curious as to what effect you think you're achieving.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:03am**

Eternal_Freedom wrote:He tried to get around it in his OP by outlining why he got this "impression" that the SW galaxy was small and dense, and then providing us with his annotations in his second post, namely:

WATCH-MAN wrote: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.
I was under the impression (ironic I know) that such blanket statements were frowned upon on SDN? He has, after all, made the claim (his OP stating his "impression") but has then explicitly forbidden us from debating this impression, by asking solely for evidence...and proceeding to nitpick, idly dismiss, or outright misrepresent anything we provide, going so far as to question logical deductions and questioning how much I know of the subject (does that not count as an ad hominem?) and appealing to the authority of Curtis Saxton and using that in an argument, even though by his own rules such logical deductions should be inadmissible.

I suspect that might be part of the reason Queue made his post. After all when admins make posts from their admin accounts (opposed to their normal accounts) especially when calling someone out, it's to give a way out for some who might be considered to have broken the rules but who the staff doesn't want to just punish. Generally if a thread is just going nowhere it's locked, without any sort fuss.

I've read the OP and quite frankly nothing in there is conclusive evidence for a abnormally dense dwarf galaxy, after all extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof and all he provided is vague impressions.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:08am**

The hilarious part is, in his first reply to me on the first page, when I point out that not allowing discussion of whether his impression is right or wrong gravely restricts the discussion, he posted with this:

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.

He has formed his impression, and struggles to believe anyone else can form a different impression. That right there is, I think, an admission that he is not looking for an alternative explanation, no matter what he might say.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:25am**

That it might but quite frankly that was obvious to begin with.

There's a reason while I called his "impression" an assertion, calling it a claim would imply that Watch-man would be willing to defend it or be willing to consider alternative viewpoints but his actions on this thread have shown that he is not in both cases and calling it an impression would imply that it's well an impression and not fact and yet Watch-man treats it as irrefutable fact so why should we treat it that way as well?

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:28am**

WATCHMAN.
You were informed by Queue that your opponents had provided enough information, and that you yourself needed to start backing your arguments. While your sources on Dwarf Galaxies is nice, it is NOT from Star Wars Canon resources, and therefore has no bearing upon this discussion.

If you want to turn this into a discussion on Real World Astrophysics and Dwarf Galaxies, take it to SLAM. Otherwise, start producing SW CANON Evidence for your theory.

You have 24hrs to prove your point.

Posted: **2015-10-07 06:25am**

In fairness, if we could prove that the Star Wars galaxy had some obvious visual characteristic that made it look like a galaxy with characteristic XYZ, I think we could then use real astrophysics to make (tentative) deductions about the Star Wars galaxy.

Indeed, one of our major lines of argument has been that the Star Wars galaxy is a spiral, and looks 'normal' for a spiral galaxy instead of being freakish in some way, which in turn suggests that it has the characteristics of a 'normal' spiral galaxy (such as being somewhere between half the diameter and twice the diameter of the Milky Way).

Do you consider that a bad line of argument to pursue? Because quite honestly, it's the single best argument I know on our side of the debate- since it's the only one based on direct observation.

EDIT: I feel that the real problem Watch-Man has, aside from never really addressing my argument on Olbers' Paradox and hyperspace navigation, is that he also never even really engaged with this 'galaxy size' argument we're talking about.

Instead, he seems to just spam nitpicks and say "you will provide evidence for this claim" in response to things that literally anyone who isn't blind could tell just by casually glancing at the pictures people are linking to. And repeatedly misreads or misunderstands the wording of Wikipedia articles in ways grossly favorable to his argument. But he never really engaged us on the scientific merits of the argument, namely that dwarf spirals are unusual galaxies, that nearly all spiral galaxies are about the size of the Milky Way, and that no galaxies of any size show the kind of ultra-dense structure it would take for the stars to be only a few light-days or light-weeks apart.

Posted: **2015-10-07 06:52am**

I gonna say essentially same what simon said our argument basically has been "the SW galaxy looks like a regular spiral, so unless there's evidence to say otherwise we should assume it's a regular spiral galaxy", while Watch-man has provided essentially "my impression is that SW is this abnormally dense dwarf galaxy" and that's it, yet he treats his impression as fact similar to water is wet or that sun is hot and gets upset when we ask for him to show the evidence that shows that to be fact, that is when he doesn't flat out ignore the request that is.

Posted: **2015-10-07 08:31am**

WATCH-MAN, please answer Lady Tevar's challenge to either provide an evidence-based competing explanation, or concede that your personal feelings on the issue are at least unreliable and probably wrong.

Or alternatively, post something trivial and poorly-formatted about how your demands for ever-additional precision are the signature of a noble and honest pursuit of truth. Either way, it'll remain here for review by any and all long after we lock the thread (that's a hint to anyone who wants to summarize the thread or get in closing statements for posterity, to point out the next time someone wants to take a few whacks at this particular horse carcass).

Posted: **2015-10-07 10:05am**

Queue wrote:(that's a hint to anyone who wants to summarize the thread or get in closing statements for posterity, to point out the next time someone wants to take a few whacks at this particular horse carcass).

Queue can I be so bold as to ask for a minor clarification, are you saying "stop beating a dead horse guys this thread is over!" or "I think this subject is a dead horse, if someone wants to summarize this thread or get a final post be my guest"?

Posted: **2015-10-07 10:39am**

It means the latter. Shrinking the size of the galaxy is actually an old Trekkie tactic for reducing Wars' speed advantage. It's been tried even before the prequels came out with their nice new screenshots. This debate will remain here, locked, after everyone has had their say, so that the next crop of debaters won't have to slog through the web trying to find a reply.

Posted: **2015-10-07 12:28pm**

As Queue has said, this thread will be left here, locked, for further reference by anyone who needs the information you gentles have helpfully posted. Why it took you kids 7pages to refute this is beyond me

14hrs left for WATCHMAN to refute.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:33pm**

LadyTevar wrote:As Queue has said, this thread will be left here, locked, for further reference by anyone who needs the information you gentles have helpfully posted. Why it took you kids 7pages to refute this is beyond me

14hrs left for WATCHMAN to refute.

Well Tev it took us 7 pages because someone who shall remain unnamed wouldn't play fair if we were to cut all the irrelevant nitpicking and pendantic obstanence this thread would only be about 3 pages max.

but seeing as that someone had to nickpick every single detail no matter how insignifigant to death, all the while not even bothering to admit he had made a claim let alone defend it.
Spoiler

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:35pm**

Maybe it is only myself, but I feel as if reasonable responses were given to him from early on; he was intent though on carrying out his objective, that is, to come to the conclusion that the SW Galaxy is meager in size (and indeed, it returns us back to the issue of SW hyperdrive speeds). While allegedly he claimed that he had nothing to gain from this topic aside from sheer knowledge, that rings rather hallow on the face of what he writes here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=163047 This thread shows his underlying purpose on why he seeks proof of the SW Galaxy being order of magnitude smaller than the Milky Way (again, hypedrive speeds). As stated by Queue, this strategy has been employed before WATCH_MAN, and now that more definitive, clearer proof is available, that argument holds even less validity than before the Ep II: AOTC.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:50pm**

Does it matter that Leland Chee confirmed that the stellar object shown at the end of TESB was indeed the Star Wars galaxy?

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:53pm**

I hate to dogpile here, but is there a reason Watch-Man is using the list function? It makes his posts more time consuming to quote for no benefit.

Posted: **2015-10-07 01:59pm**

First I'll apologize for using the list format but I feel it's the best way to express my points here

Now what wanted to say as closing statement of sorts. when making a thread like this there are few things one should remember.

State your intent for the thread clearly and honestly, there's nothing more annoying then finding that goal of thread was something else the stated goal
When you treat something as fact others will treat it that way too and will ask for evidence for it be prepared to back your claims
Do not assume that your opinion is the victor by default, all options are considered equally and you need to back your claims
Do not lie (well this should be obvious but still) or try to mask your true intentions
Do not be overly pendantic when making an argument, while it's good to question the sources to see if they say what's implied there is a limit to it

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:00pm**

Galvatron wrote:Does it matter that Leland Chee confirmed that the stellar object shown at the end of TESB was indeed the Star Wars galaxy?

Well, to be fair. On pg. 322 in The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, it's stated that it's a nebula.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:01pm**

Adamskywalker007 wrote:I hate to dogpile here, but is there a reason Watch-Man is using the list function? It makes his posts more time consuming to quote for no benefit.

I think that's the intention there, it makes them bloody annoying to read too.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:15pm**

Mange wrote:
Galvatron wrote:Does it matter that Leland Chee confirmed that the stellar object shown at the end of TESB was indeed the Star Wars galaxy?
Well, to be fair. On pg. 322 in The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, it's stated that it's a nebula.

I think it's been stated to be many things over the years, but it's my understanding that Leland Chee is now basically the final word on LFL's canon policy.

Posted: **2015-10-07 02:20pm**

Galvatron wrote:
Mange wrote:
Galvatron wrote:Does it matter that Leland Chee confirmed that the stellar object shown at the end of TESB was indeed the Star Wars galaxy?
Well, to be fair. On pg. 322 in The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, it's stated that it's a nebula.
I think it's been stated to be many things over the years, but it's my understanding that Leland Chee is now basically the final word on LFL's canon policy.

Well, after 2012 the Story Group is and as Chee is a member of that group, that is absolutely true.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy

Re: The size of the Star Wars Galaxy