Starfleet Jedi

Here is a calculation of the size of the star wars galaxy.

"Vader stared at the motley array of stars displayed on the conference-room map while Tarkin and Admiral Motti conferred nearby. Interestingly, the first use of the most powerful destructive machine ever constructed had seemingly had no influence at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy.

So according to Vader the star wars galaxy is of a modest size.

Modest: (of an amount, rate, or level of something) relatively moderate, limited, or small.

So the star wars galaxy is a small galaxy.

According to NASA most of the Galaxies in our local group are at least 10 times smaller than the milky way so that gives an average of about 10,000 light years.

The star wars galaxy is stated to be small so it is probably around 8,000 light years.

What your opinion about this calculation?

theta_pinch wrote:Here is a calculation of the size of the star wars galaxy.

"Vader stared at the motley array of stars displayed on the conference-room map while Tarkin and Admiral Motti conferred nearby. Interestingly, the first use of the most powerful destructive machine ever constructed had seemingly had no influence at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy.

So according to Vader the star wars galaxy is of a modest size.

Modest: (of an amount, rate, or level of something) relatively moderate, limited, or small.

So the star wars galaxy is a small galaxy.

According to NASA most of the Galaxies in our local group are at least 10 times smaller than the milky way so that gives an average of about 10,000 light years.

The star wars galaxy is stated to be small so it is probably around 8,000 light years.

What your opinion about this calculation?

Your reasoning is fine, but the SW EU has been pushing for a 120,000 LY wide galaxy for some time now.

Mith wrote:

theta_pinch wrote:Here is a calculation of the size of the star wars galaxy.

"Vader stared at the motley array of stars displayed on the conference-room map while Tarkin and Admiral Motti conferred nearby. Interestingly, the first use of the most powerful destructive machine ever constructed had seemingly had no influence at all on that map, which in itself represented only a tiny fraction of this section of one modest-sized galaxy.

So according to Vader the star wars galaxy is of a modest size.

Modest: (of an amount, rate, or level of something) relatively moderate, limited, or small.

So the star wars galaxy is a small galaxy.

According to NASA most of the Galaxies in our local group are at least 10 times smaller than the milky way so that gives an average of about 10,000 light years.

The star wars galaxy is stated to be small so it is probably around 8,000 light years.

What your opinion about this calculation?

Your reasoning is fine, but the SW EU has been pushing for a 120,000 LY wide galaxy for some time now.

But the EU can be overridden by G-canon and the comment about a modest-sized galaxy was made in A New Hope so 120,000 LY is out since that is large not small.

With this calculation it wouldn't actually be bigger than the Federation. That really does not look good for hyperdrives.

theta_pinch wrote:
But the EU can be overridden by G-canon and the comment about a modest-sized galaxy was made in A New Hope so 120,000 LY is out since that is large not small.

It was also more of an aside rather than a major plot point. The rest of the EU seems to indicate a larger galaxy. And I'd also like to point out that they are re-arranging canon hierarchy, so it's best not to get attached to something that was mentioned more off handed than not.

I naturally concur that the EU figure is invalid, being both overruled and irrelevant.

As I think I noted recently, however, expect some movement on this topic soon as TCW and missed prequel details are included.

Suffice it to say that I will be revising my estimates downward.

2046 wrote:I naturally concur that the EU figure is invalid, being both overruled and irrelevant.

As I think I noted recently, however, expect some movement on this topic soon as TCW and missed prequel details are included.

Suffice it to say that I will be revising my estimates downward.

Hey, I'm open minded. If you've got the evidence, I'm willing to listen.

Mith wrote:

2046 wrote:I naturally concur that the EU figure is invalid, being both overruled and irrelevant.

As I think I noted recently, however, expect some movement on this topic soon as TCW and missed prequel details are included.

Suffice it to say that I will be revising my estimates downward.

Hey, I'm open minded. If you've got the evidence, I'm willing to listen.

The comment about a modest-sized galaxy is evidence.

theta_pinch wrote:

Mith wrote:

2046 wrote:I naturally concur that the EU figure is invalid, being both overruled and irrelevant.

As I think I noted recently, however, expect some movement on this topic soon as TCW and missed prequel details are included.

Suffice it to say that I will be revising my estimates downward.

Hey, I'm open minded. If you've got the evidence, I'm willing to listen.

The comment about a modest-sized galaxy is evidence.

Yes, but it's fairly off-handed, so you can understand my skepticism. In addition, the changes to canon may result in that having no effect on the rest of the franchise, even if we were to assume it as a highly defining moment for the franchise's galaxy size.

Personally, I like the idea. Not because it neuters FTL or anything for SW, but because it would make it actually feel like it's in a foreign galaxy, rather than Milky Way Galaxy 2.0.

Most evidence for things which are not in and of themselves major plot points are off-handed. Tatooine to Geonosis being a parsec away from each other is an off-handed detail . . . "we're a lot closer" would've been sufficient. Instead, we got detail, and it was good. Qui-Gon noting that most stars have planets was an off-hand comment. All the bits about fusion as the power source in Star Wars were off-hand comments.

For Star Trek, there are a zillion similar examples.

That's just to say that dismissing it as an offhand comment rather nullifies everything we do here. And even if it was such a comment, that does not make it wrong and and of itself.

Mith wrote:

Mith wrote:

2046 wrote:I naturally concur that the EU figure is invalid, being both overruled and irrelevant.

As I think I noted recently, however, expect some movement on this topic soon as TCW and missed prequel details are included.

Suffice it to say that I will be revising my estimates downward.

Hey, I'm open minded. If you've got the evidence, I'm willing to listen.

The comment about a modest-sized galaxy is evidence.

Yes, but it's fairly off-handed, so you can understand my skepticism. In addition, the changes to canon may result in that having no effect on the rest of the franchise, even if we were to assume it as a highly defining moment for the franchise's galaxy size.

Personally, I like the idea. Not because it neuters FTL or anything for SW, but because it would make it actually feel like it's in a foreign galaxy, rather than Milky Way Galaxy 2.0.

Vader is not known for underestimating the Empire's might.

2046 wrote:Most evidence for things which are not in and of themselves major plot points are off-handed. Tatooine to Geonosis being a parsec away from each other is an off-handed detail . . . "we're a lot closer" would've been sufficient. Instead, we got detail, and it was good. Qui-Gon noting that most stars have planets was an off-hand comment. All the bits about fusion as the power source in Star Wars were off-hand comments.

For Star Trek, there are a zillion similar examples.

That's just to say that dismissing it as an offhand comment rather nullifies everything we do here. And even if it was such a comment, that does not make it wrong and and of itself.

I'm not saying that off-handed comments aren't in and of themselves useful. But many franchises have continuity errors and while this one would certainly lend itself to the EU being at fault, the fact is that the comment was rather minor and for decades they've assumed it was a MW galaxy size.

Also, fun note; the Essential Atlas places SW galaxy at 100,000 LY (roughly), not 120,000 LY that you tend to hear about.

Mith wrote:

2046 wrote:Most evidence for things which are not in and of themselves major plot points are off-handed. Tatooine to Geonosis being a parsec away from each other is an off-handed detail . . . "we're a lot closer" would've been sufficient. Instead, we got detail, and it was good. Qui-Gon noting that most stars have planets was an off-hand comment. All the bits about fusion as the power source in Star Wars were off-hand comments.

For Star Trek, there are a zillion similar examples.

That's just to say that dismissing it as an offhand comment rather nullifies everything we do here. And even if it was such a comment, that does not make it wrong and and of itself.

I'm not saying that off-handed comments aren't in and of themselves useful. But many franchises have continuity errors and while this one would certainly lend itself to the EU being at fault, the fact is that the comment was rather minor and for decades they've assumed it was a MW galaxy size.

Also, fun note; the Essential Atlas places SW galaxy at 100,000 LY (roughly), not 120,000 LY that you tend to hear about.

That is still large not modest and Vader is not known for understating the empire

Mith wrote:the fact is that the comment was rather minor and for decades they've assumed it was a MW galaxy size.

While modern Star Wars inflationists do tend to be ignorant of their own canon, in this case the proper response is simply to note that an error oft-propagated remains an error. The fact that the error occurs only in irrelevant sources is icing on the cake.

2046 wrote:

Mith wrote:the fact is that the comment was rather minor and for decades they've assumed it was a MW galaxy size.

While modern Star Wars inflationists do tend to be ignorant of their own canon, in this case the proper response is simply to note that an error oft-propagated remains an error. The fact that the error occurs only in irrelevant sources is icing on the cake.

Well, we should soon be seeing how the canon hierarchy is being restructured. Until then, all we can offer on the subject is possible interpretations.

I will note however, that most SW fanboys tend to argue that since it's a spiral galaxy, it can't possibly be as small as that quote would indicate. This is however, not at all true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_spiral_galaxy