That's not what I said, is it?Mr. Oragahn wrote:Now, the erroneous placement of two planets on the chart wouldn't rule out the whole source, right?
I merely said that it does compromise the whole source and one should be very careful when using it. And of course, if we are talking about the size of the galaxy and the amount of inhabitable planest in that galaxy, there are subsequent errors. In a small galaxy are less planets than in a huge galaxy. Insofar I think that the by that source given size is as compromised as the by that source given amount of inhabitable planets.
No, I did not yet post a scan of the map of the Essential Atlas.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Did you already post a picture/scan of the Atlas' map in this thread ? I'm not sure, I've seen one, but there just are so many on Internet, I can't recall.
But here it is:
The distance between Endor and Sullust is less than four times the diameter of that galaxy in that map.
If that galaxy is supposed to have a diameter of 120.000 light years, the distance between Endor and Sullust has to be 30.000 light years.
That would contradict the in the novel » Return of the Jedi « given information that the distance between Sullust and Endor is only hundred of light years. No one would speak of hundred of light years if 30.000 light years are meant.
It would be as if one would say that London, UK is only hundred of kilometers away from Sydney, Australia.
Everyone would say thousand of kilometers as thousand of light years would have been used if the distance between Endor and Sullust were 30.000 light years.
Logical conclusion: the scale is wrong and the galaxy has maximal a 50.000 light years diameter. Even that would mean that the distance between Endor and Sullust is still more than 12.500 light years.
If we assume a distance between Sullust and Endor of only 5.000 light years (50 times hundred light years), the galaxy would have a diameter of only 20.000 light years.
And of course, the amount of inhabitable planets are depending on the size of the galaxy.
If the size of that galaxy in that source is wrong, it is only plausible to assume that the amount of inhabitalbe planets are also wrong. At least this information is compromised.