A way to proof if the SW galaxy is the same size as ours...

PunkMaister · Post by **PunkMaister** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:48 pm

According to modern astronomy large galaxies such as our own have massive black holes at their cores. The one at the center of ours and Andromeda which is the closest large spiral galaxy have been confirmed. Smaller or so called dwarf galaxies do not seem to have this feature, now does the SW galaxy has or not a massive black hole whirling at it's core? I have never heard of such a thing. I have however heard of the so called maw! Now if this maw lies at the galactic core being a smaller still growing galaxy as it goes on it's merry way across the cosmos gobbling smaller galaxies that cross it's path just as our has then the fact that the area is dotted with black holes makes perfect sense at one point those black holes will coalesce into a massive one just as the one our galaxy now boasts...

Airlocke_Jedi_Knight · Post by **Airlocke_Jedi_Knight** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:35 pm

The maw is not at the core. If looking at a map of the SW galaxy(which I have always seen mapped as a spiral galaxy) the maw would be at the left hand side of the map.

The so called "core" of the galaxy, containing worlds such as Coruscant and Kuat, is actually ring round a massive cluster of black holes, inside of which, lies the inner core. The inner core is made up of several star systems, and the size of it, and the percentage of the galaxy that it accounts for, is unknown.

This information, however, most certainly falls in that category of EU creations that were not addressed at all in any canonical source. So you can take that as you please.

2046 · Post by **2046** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:38 am

Unfortunately, by that reasoning, even Star Trek doesn't occur in a galaxy as large as ours. Refer to Star Trek V and "The Nth Degree".

Praeothmin · Post by **Praeothmin** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:16 pm

Well, 2046, since even Gene Roddenberry himself disavowed ST V, I think we can ignore it... :)

PunkMaister · Post by **PunkMaister** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:14 pm

Praeothmin wrote:Well, 2046, since even Gene Roddenberry himself disavowed ST V, I think we can ignore it... :)

That was indeed a pathetic movie...

Flectarn · Post by **Flectarn** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:31 pm

and it leaves so many questions unanswered...

Like just what it was that god needed with the star ship

Praeothmin · Post by **Praeothmin** » Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:48 pm

Flectarn wrote:Like just what it was that god needed with the star ship

I guess he didn't have a rubber ducky to play with in his bath... :)

2046 · Post by **2046** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:55 am

I have to admit, I'm rather fond of that movie in many respects. Sure, Spock should've shot him for the good of the ship, and the Klingon ship ought to have been a D-7, but beyond that the movie isn't really as bad as it is made out to be.

"What does God need with a starship?" is one of the best lines of Trek.

ILikeDeathNote · Post by **ILikeDeathNote** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:22 am

Flectarn wrote:and it leaves so many questions unanswered...

Like just what it was that god needed with the star ship

I think the implication was that whatever it was just wanted to get off the planet. It was rather just a horrible, horrible coincidence that there just happened to have been a being capable of at least making people think he's God on the planet Sybok thought God would be on.

Tyralak · Post by **Tyralak** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:02 pm

PunkMaister wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:Well, 2046, since even Gene Roddenberry himself disavowed ST V, I think we can ignore it... :)
That was indeed a pathetic movie...

It was really horrible.

enigma · Post by **enigma** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:25 am

Tyralak wrote:
PunkMaister wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:Well, 2046, since even Gene Roddenberry himself disavowed ST V, I think we can ignore it... :)
That was indeed a pathetic movie...
It was really horrible.

Come on! Don't tell me that a naked Uhura doesn't crank your warp core. :)

ILikeDeathNote · Post by **ILikeDeathNote** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:31 am

enigma wrote: Come on! Don't tell me that a naked Uhura doesn't crank your warp core. :)

I don't think we've ever even been able to confirm she was naked (it was just a dumb, off-hand comment by an equally dumb henchman to just further punctuate how dumb the movie was) and considering that she's a Starfleet Officer I highly doubt she was. Either way, she was just backlit in silhouette form so it really doesn't matter.

Post by **Jedi Master Spock** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:31 am

2046 wrote:I have to admit, I'm rather fond of that movie in many respects. Sure, Spock should've shot him for the good of the ship, and the Klingon ship ought to have been a D-7, but beyond that the movie isn't really as bad as it is made out to be.

"What does God need with a starship?" is one of the best lines of Trek.

It's a good line, but I have to disagree about how good a movie it is. Scene after scene seems stilted and awkward. It's like these actors never worked with each other before, and didn't study their character roles...

... which we know isn't the case. IMO, it's the worst Trek movie, no contest. I'm of the opinion William Shatner did a lousy job as a director.