The distance of a parsec in the Star Wars galaxy

[Mange]

Standard measurements are based from Coruscant. Additionally, Standard gravity in SW is also different from that of Real Life because of the differences in Coruscant's size and density: 13.93 m/s^2, or 1.389x Earth gravity.

The value of the kilogram is not effected because it is based on mass rather than weight.

Yes, exactly. I don't understand why some people finds this so controversial.

[hvb]

Well, HVB, you've proven that you know your history, but not common sense. I will summarize my thinking (as well as my earlier posts) to make it simple. We know the radius of Coruscant's orbit. Therefore it is quite simple, by using trigonometry, to calculate the distance of a parsec based on its orbit. This means that we'll have to assume that Coruscant is the basis of all measurements in the Star Wars galaxy. I'll also make the assumption that the SI units (units of length, power etc) are the same as on Earth (regardless of how the people in the SW galaxy calculated them). I can't see why a different value of the parsec is so controversial as it can't be the same as for Earth. I'm sure Lucas didn't bother exactly what he meant with the distance of a parsec as Star Wars isn't science fiction, but rather fantasy (if you can tell the difference of course). I don't think that the writers of Star Trek can tell the distance of a parsec either.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure if suspension of disbelief allows what you suggested:

So when Anakin says "within a parsec" that is perforce a translated distance.

This actually seems to be very close to the point I was making, in a roundabouts and backward manner.

You assume that the radius of the orbit of Coruscant taken from a canon source has been duly rendered into Earth units.
You then assume that the comment by Anakin, also from a canon source, has not been so rendered.
Then you do the math to find a SW parsec. (I'm OK with the math part )

BUT: what is the criterion that you assume makes it OK to accept the unit at face value in the first case, but not in the second? Is there a difference? Both are from canon sources, both are in units that have a set value on Earth, neither the parsec nor the mile is a S.I. units (as if that should make a difference).

This means that we'll have to assume that Coruscant is the basis of all measurements in the Star Wars galaxy.

I'll also make the assumption that the SI units (units of length, power etc) are the same as on Earth (regardless of how the people in the SW galaxy calculated them).

Isn't this having the cake and eating it (or maybe begging the question)? You want to assume that the units are our own, so you can use them to recalculate some of the same units, to show they are not our own ... that would be OK if you where making a proof by contradiction; but you are not trying to prove that the parsec is not the same in SW & real life systems, you are trying to find an actual value for it! If a proof by contradiction gives a value that proves the theory is in error, said value is not a solution to the theory.

Also: just because the parsec is not a S.I. unit does not mean that it is more open to redefininition then a S.I. unit like the metre.

Anyway the orbital radius is given in miles, also not a S.I unit, so by your own argument you would have to redefine the SW mile based on Coruscant.
(the next problem here being that a mile is not defined based on any scaling of the Earth... )

[Mange]

Well, HVB, my intention wasn't to make a debate out of this or take it so seriously, as I didn't believe that the subject could be that controversial. However, this has become a rather interesting discussion.

You assume that the radius of the orbit of Coruscant taken from a canon source has been duly rendered into Earth units.

We haven't seen any evidence yet that proves, one way or the other, that SI units aren't used in Star Wars. As dr. Saxton and Mike Wong points out, most of the references used in the movies supports the assumption that the SI units are more or less the same (for distances that is).

You then assume that the comment by Anakin, also from a canon source, has not been so rendered.

Quite correct (it's actually Padmé who states that "Geonosis is less than a parsec away"). If we follow this logic (that the distance is translated), Padmé would probably have given the distance in light years.

BUT: what is the criterion that you assume makes it OK to accept the unit at face value in the first case, but not in the second? Is there a difference? Both are from canon sources, both are in units that have a set value on Earth, neither the parsec nor the mile is a S.I. units (as if that should make a difference).

Answered above. About the parsec, while the parsec isn't a SI unit, it's closely associated to it and it is used by astronomers and other physics while light years is mostly used in popular texts and magazines.

Anyway the orbital radius is given in miles, also not a S.I unit, so by your own argument you would have to redefine the SW mile based on Coruscant.
(the next problem here being that a mile is not defined based on any scaling of the Earth... )

To make a long answer short... nonsense.

EDIT: I forgot to make a correction, HVB. You wrote:

Then you do the math to find a SW parsec. (I'm OK with the math part )

Actually it was Spanky the Dolphin who first calculated the distance of a Coruscant parsec in April last year (which I was unaware of as I recently joined this forum and couldn't find it in any searches). My calculations put a Coruscant parsec at between 4.72 and 5 light years, while Spanky had the courage to nail it down to 4.95 light years. That is why I would like to see some more suggestions.

[hvb]

Well it seems I am the only one on my side of the controversy, so it is not all that controversial, Mange ... although correctness is not determined by a democratic process in science, so I'll just keep arguing my view.

I just checked the first page: the radius is in km, not miles as I have been assuming, making the "both are non-S.I. units" crap, my bad.
Padmé & Sparky not Ani & Mange. Check.

We haven't seen any evidence yet that proves, one way or the other, that SI units aren't used in Star Wars. As dr. Saxton and Mike Wong points out, most of the references used in the movies supports the assumption that the SI units are more or less the same (for distances that is).

Have we seen any evidence that non-S.I. units (like the parsec) are not also "more or less the same"?

And isn't the most likely reason that they are the same that they have been translated, rather then that they just happening to have, simultaneously, the same scale, unit & name as a unit in the S.I. system?
Why would the parsec not receive the same treatment as S.I. units? It is just as real as they are, so why should it have been changed dramatically, when they are kept "more or less the same"?

If we follow this logic (that the distance is translated), Padmé would probably have given the distance in light years.

Yes if all scales are translated that would be true, provided that they have light years as their standard short interstellar lenght scale.
They probably use something based on either light speed and a SW time unit or on a SW angular resolution and a SW length scale, just like us.
The thing is: whatever that unit is called in 'Basic' and whatever its scale, it has been rendered into a unit in current use in the english language; just like the S.I. units, except that this time the translation was not to an S.I. unit.
Note that none of the translations can have been from S.I. units. 'Basic' can not possibly support those, since the S.I. unit metre is based on the polar circumface of the earth (though later recalibrated), a length scale the SW universe does not have access to: we can see their universe, they show no evidence of seeing ours (except for in fanfics). So units translated to S.I. units should carry no more weight then those translated to non-S.I. units. Both started out as the non-S.I. units supported by 'Basic' in the SW universe.

Thus I hold Padmé's comment to say that Geonosis is within 3.3 light years of Tatooine, not 4.95 +/- 0.23 or whatever.

Either all the units must have been translated or they have not been, and the not is too unrealistic. And as long as the unit they are translated to is well defined I see no reason to make a sharp distinction between S.I. and other destination units; the source units should have the same canonality no matter what they where translated to.

Damnit the 12.00 (local summer time) site backup ate my first attempt to post this.
It's true what they say: Real men don't keep backups ... but they cry a lot.
luckily I'm not a real man (by this definition anyway): I kept a backup

[Mange]

Hello there, HVB! Nice to hear from you again!

Well it seems I am the only one on my side of the controversy, so it is not all that controversial, Mange ... although correctness is not determined by a democratic process in science, so I'll just keep arguing my view.

Yes, perhaps I exaggerated a bit, but I didn't expect any controversies. Keep arguing, but please submit some evidence that proves your point.

And isn't the most likely reason that they are the same that they have been translated, rather then that they just happening to have, simultaneously, the same scale, unit & name as a unit in the S.I. system?

As I've stated earlier, I don't know if suspension of disbelief allows for this. Pablo Hidalgo once answered the following question in a chat (note, the question wasn't from me):

Pab, there is a moment in episode 4, when Ben deactivate the tracor beam on a Death Star. And in this moment there are english words is writen there - "POWER" and "TRACTOR BEAM". In all following Star Wars movies all words(on monitors and e.t.c) are writen in unknown(to us) galactic language. So are any plans to replace these ENGLISH words in episode 4 for more common star wars galactic hieroglyphs when
DVD will be released?

No. I fielded this question in the Q&A column, and the simple answer is that there's more than one way to produce the Basic alphabet. One of them looks a lot like (or rather, exactly) like our terrestrial English alphabet. This is why a Y-wing looks like a Y, and an X-wing looks like an X.

Why have I included this seemingly unrelated passage, you may wonder? Well, it shows that what you see is what you get, the same goes for all other instances where numbers etc. are shown. Nothing that has been shown has weakened the case that the units used in the Star Wars galaxy are identical (or very close) to our own units of measurements.
BTW, the quote is from a hyperspace chat, so if it isn't allowed, please remove it (since the quote doesn't concern the upcoming Episode III or any other projects besides the OT, it didn't seem to be a problem including it here).

Yes if all scales are translated that would be true, provided that they have light
years as their standard short interstellar lenght scale.
They probably use something based on either light speed and a SW time unit or on a SW angular resolution and a SW length scale, just like us.

I agree, the distances etc. just happens to be the same (well, the speed of light is a constant after all).

Why would the parsec not receive the same treatment as S.I. units? It is just as real as they are, so why should it have been changed dramatically, when they are kept "more or less the same"?

Yes, but now we know the orbital radius of Coruscant, and that DOES NOT allow a Coruscant parsec to be the same as a parsec (again, assuming that Coruscant is the basis for measurements in the SW galaxy).

The thing is: whatever that unit is called in 'Basic' and whatever its scale, it has been rendered into a unit in current use in the english language; just like the S.I. units, except that this time the translation was not to an S.I. unit. Note that none of the translations can have been from S.I. units. 'Basic' can not possibly support those, since the S.I. unit metre is based on the polar circumface of the earth (though later recalibrated), a length scale the SW universe does not have access to: we can see their universe, they show no evidence of seeing ours (except for
in fanfics). So units translated to S.I. units should carry no more weight then those translated to non-S.I. units. Both started out as the non-S.I. units supported by 'Basic' in the SW universe.

I guess we won't see any references in the movies as to what the units of measurement for distance etc. are called in the SW galaxy, but I maintain, whatever they're called, the distances etc. (sorry, a bit repetitive there) are almost the same or identical to the SI system.

Thus I hold Padmé's comment to say that Geonosis is within 3.3 light years of Tatooine, not 4.95 +/- 0.23 or whatever.

Fine, I can't say you're either right or wrong (as nothing is explicitly mentioned in the canon), merely that the evidence shows that the distance is longer than 3.26 light years.
Again, nothing is mentioned in the canon as to what decides the distance of a parsec in the SW galaxy, but most likely it's based on the radius of Coruscant's orbit. I don't argue the point that the word "parsec" is translated, but I do believe it's calculated in the same way as it is calculated here. Compare this to Star Trek, where the Federation
still uses parsec based on Earth (and not Vulcan for example).

I don't know what the EU says about this topic. I don't care for the EU (except for the Thrawn trilogy which I read a decade ago), but please, put arguments forward that supports your case from either canon or the EU.

I didn't think it could be so exhausting writing about made-up planets...

[hvb]

Keep arguing, but please submit some evidence that proves your point.

I have argued for the position I hold by use of logic, as there is no easy way to provide proof, one way or the other.

You see: I cannot prove that SW units are translated to english, with proper recalibration, nor can you prove that they are not, as we do not have access to the original language source, only to the translated work.
Now had SW epI-VI been in original language, with subtitiles , we might have had a chance (but if GL didn't provided a 'Basic' to english dictionary as well, we would have serious trouble anyhow.)

All I can say is "the rest of the dialogue is translated, and the units are units from current english usage also, so it seems logical that the units and values where converted too, along with the language."

The alternative is to assume a theory that :

A) "The language is translated, as are the units, but the values are not converted" + "the SW units just happen to be about the same as a serendipitously calibrated unit in ours, for all known examples of units."

OR

B) "The language is translated, but the units and values are not converted" + "the SW units just happen to have units that have the same calibration as ours and just happen to have names that sound like our names for said unit, for all known examples of units."

In the same mode the theory I herald is:
C) "The language is translated, as are the units, and values are converted; thus the units we see/hear are our own units, just like the english we see/hear is our own english (or the Queens at any rate)."

True: This is logical arguments, not proofs.
However I fail to see how A) or B) can be more likely then C) until evidence is provided that C) cannot hold true, since C) can make do with 1 assumption, while A) needs 1+[number of units seen/heard in SW] and B) needs 1+[2 times the number of units seen/heard in SW].
Ockham's Razor!
If you have better evidence please enlighten me with it!

As for the DS power & tractor beam examples: they where delinerately altered into english to help the audience follow the action, just like the language was changed to english (but of course you would have to suspend disbelief just a bit to accept that ); not does it hold any units so cannot be pertinent to this discussion, except circumstantially.

we know the orbital radius of Coruscant, and that DOES NOT allow a Coruscant parsec to be the same as a parsec

I have already said that I have no problem with a "Coruscant parsec" not be a parsec (but rather being 1.5-ish parsec), a gallon also changes when crossing the atlantic, which is why a qualifyer is put in front to seperate UK gallons from US ones when confusion could arise. This conversation is proof that such confusion has arisen, so as Padmé did not say "Coruscant parsec" but rather "parsec"...

Compare this to Star Trek, where the Federation
still uses parsec based on Earth (and not Vulcan for example).

... or at least "parsec" is what comes out of the universal translators; have you heard a Vulcan say "parsec" while that nice little device was off? Did any other species/race do so while talking in original language?

The comparison is pointless unless you can provide evidence that procludes translator interference, as in Trek that is an in-universe form of what I argue we see on screen in SW: we understand them because it is translated, and exactly not because 'Basic' = english, here the Vulcan 'uses' the unit parsec because that was the unit the translator translated whatever he said in Vulcan into, just like my argument about units in SW.

[p.s. I will not be posting a new reply until monday (long weekend )]

[Mange]

Hello HVB, I hope you had a pleasant weekend. I can't make this a lengthy post, but I will return on Tuesday (April 27).

I have argued for the position I hold by use of logic, as there is no easy way to provide proof, one way or the other.

You see: I cannot prove that SW units are translated to english, with proper recalibration, nor can you prove that they are not, as we do not have access to the original language source, only to the translated work.

I totally agree. I also pointed this out in an earlier post.

A) "The language is translated, as are the units, but the values are not converted" + "the SW units just happen to be about the same as a serendipitously calibrated unit in ours, for all known examples of units."

OR

B) "The language is translated, but the units and values are not converted" + "the SW units just happen to have units that have the same calibration as ours and just happen to have names that sound like our names for said unit, for all known examples of units."

In the same mode the theory I herald is:
C) "The language is translated, as are the units, and values are converted; thus the units we see/hear are our own units, just like the english we see/hear is our own english (or the Queens at any rate).
True: This is logical arguments, not proofs.
However I fail to see how A) or B) can be more likely then C) until evidence is provided that C) cannot hold true, since C) can make do with 1 assumption, while A) needs 1+[number of units seen/heard in SW] and B) needs 1+[2 times the number of units seen/heard in SW].
Ockham's Razor!
If you have better evidence please enlighten me with it!

Good reasoning. My position is, the word parsec is a translation to English, while the method of calculation basically is the same and the distance differ from "our" parsec.

[hvb]

Good reasoning. My position is, the word parsec is a translation to English, while the method of calculation basically is the same and the distance differ from "our" parsec.

So that's is basically Theory A) as applied to the parsec ...
although you (plural) then use Theory C) to arrive at your S.I. unit meter for your comparison with the Earth parsec of 1.52: having your cake and eating it. settle on one theory (or come up with a better theory), please.

A) "The language is translated, as are the units, but the values are not converted" +
"the SW units just happen to be about the same as a serendipitously calibrated unit in ours, for all known examples of units."

A) needs 1+[number of units seen/heard in SW]

I still think this is the best(simplest) theory:

C) "The language is translated, as are the units, and values are converted"...
thus the units we see/hear are our own units, just like the english we see/hear is our own english.

C) can make do with 1 assumption.

[Mange]

Mange the Swede wrote:
Good reasoning. My position is, the word parsec is a translation to English, while the method of calculation basically is the same and the distance differ from "our" parsec.

So that's is basically Theory A) as applied to the parsec ...
although you (plural) then use Theory C) to arrive at your S.I. unit meter for your comparison with the Earth parsec of 1.52: having your cake and eating it. settle on one theory (or come up with a better theory), please.

It seems that I was able to get away for a few minutes. HVB, I won't change position, as it is a viable theory based on the evidence (and assumptions) that has been outlined. Wait a few days, and I will make a better outline of it.

[hvb]

It seems that I was able to get away for a few minutes. HVB, I won't change position, as it is a viable theory based on the evidence (and assumptions) that has been outlined. Wait a few days, and I will make a better outline of it.

A few weeks it looks more like.

Is this a forfeit or not?

[Mange]

No, it aint. Sorry HVB, I've been busy. I will deliver no later than Thursday (May the 13th), but it could be sooner, so check back in.

[Mange]

I'm sorry HVB. I know I was supposed to post today, but some of the drawings weren't that good, so I will have to wait for one or two more days. Bear with me please.

[Mange]

HVB, I'm sorry about the delay, but here I am. I would like to start by saying that I will be breaking down this post in different sections, and that I will post the next time tomorrow (Saturday the 15th of May) or Sunday. Much is rehash, but I thought it was necessary to include it to make the post coherent. I had prepared some drawings, but they didn't turn up the way I wanted in terms of quality and size, so I chose to exclude them. Perhaps I'm able to include some drawings to illustrate in the next post, but we'll see.

Units of measurements in the Star Wars galaxy.

As we have discussed, there are different ways to interpret the units of distance measurement as seen on screen. Your interpretation (if I'm not mistaken) is that the units have been converted or translated to fit to ours, while my stance is that suspension of disbelief don't allow for this, thus the units displayed is displayed 'as is'. As you know, there are some scenes where the distance is given on screen, the battle of Yavin and the battle of Hoth. In the first case, we see the distance in a targeting display, and in the other case an Imperial walker gunner calls out the distance. It's difficult to draw solid conclusions to the visuals, but in both cases the units of measurement seems to be based on the meter (or British metre). In the Empire Strikes Back, the
distance is given as one-seven decimal two-eight, 17.28.

Light-year and parsec, Earth contra Coruscant / the Star Wars galaxy

I got interested in this whole matter when reading Dr. Saxton's excellent Star Wars Technical Commentaries. In the page Standard Units, the following passage can be found:

A light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year. An Earth-based light-year is 9.461x1015m. However this is not appropriate in a STAR WARS context, because the galactic standard year is derived from the orbital period of Coruscant rather than Earth.

In my mind, this was absolutely correct. At the time, I didn't think it was possible to derive a measurement for the measurement (strange sentence, but you'll know what I mean) that I was interested in, namely the parsec, since no official source (that I knew of) gave the orbital radius of Coruscant's orbit. Later I had the fortune to have a look inside of the very beautiful book Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Episode I, a low-order canon book. The book stated that Coruscant's orbital distance to its sun was between 207 million and 251 million kilometers. This made it easy to derive both a distance for a 'Coruscant light-year' and a 'Coruscant parsec'. Unbeknownst to me, Spanky the Dolphin had already performed the necessary calculations, almost a year on the day
before I posted. Spanky had given a more precise value than I did. Spanky showed that a 'Coruscant light-year' is 9 531 961 160 601 kilometers, and a 'Coruscant parsec' is 4.95 light-years.

I will give more substance in the next post, but I hope that this is something that you could react on. Have a nice weekend, HVB (and the rest of you)!

[hvb]

HVB, I'm sorry about the delay, but here I am. I would like to start by saying that I will be breaking down this post in different sections, and that I will post the next time tomorrow (Saturday the 15th of May) or Sunday.

Right. But lets just keep the timing a bit vague: I can't guarantee post times (... either ).

As we have discussed, there are different ways to interpret the units of distance measurement as seen on screen. Your interpretation (if I'm not mistaken) is that the units have been converted or translated to fit to ours, while my stance is that suspension of disbelief don't allow for this, thus the units displayed is displayed 'as is'.

Agreed.
To clarify from my end:
Your stance is based on suspension of disbelief as pertains the language while my stance is based on the disbelief of theory A) over theory C), to recap:

Theory A): 1+[number of units seen/heard in SW] assumptions needed. (and you should then add the assumption that people in SW speak english because that language developed seperately in their galaxy and became the dominant language there; an altogether reasonable assumption. )
Theory C): can make do with 1 assumption. (the assumption that english is used is part of this only assumption)

I find the set of assumptions in A) to be less believeable than the "relaxation of disbelief" needed to accept that the dialogue has been translated.

As you know, there are some scenes where the distance is given on screen, the battle of Yavin and the battle of Hoth. In the first case, we see the distance in a targeting display, and in the other case an Imperial walker gunner calls out the distance. It's difficult to draw solid conclusions to the visuals, but in both cases the units of measurement seems to be based on the meter (or British metre). In the Empire Strikes Back, the
distance is given as one-seven decimal two-eight, 17.28.

Indeed. As you say they seen based on the meter. (Saxton says much the same thing, just before he re-invents the year, lightyear & parsec).
This is either an unbelieveably fortuitous happenstance (your position), or due to it being a translation to english units (my position), the question is which.
Another example is the tractor beam power indicator you mentioned previously (April 20th): this must either be parallel pictographic/alphabetic aesthetic developement (no matter how it is pronounced) or a translation. (couldn't find Saxtons comment on this on his page)

Light-year and parsec, Earth contra Coruscant / the Star Wars galaxy
I got interested in this whole matter when reading Dr. Saxton's excellent Star Wars Technical Commentaries. In the page Standard Units, the following passage can be found:

A light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year. An Earth-based light-year is 9.461x10^15m. However this is not appropriate in a STAR WARS context, because the galactic standard year is derived from the orbital period of Coruscant rather than Earth.
In my mind, this was absolutely correct. ...

I edited your quote: cut & paste ruined the raised script.

No argument there, SW civilization has no info on the Earths orbital period. Where I become concerned is here:

... At the time, I didn't think it was possible to derive a measurement for ... the parsec, since no official source (that I knew of) gave the orbital radius of Coruscant's orbit. Later I had the fortune to have a look inside of the very beautiful book Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Episode I, a low-order canon book. The book stated that Coruscant's orbital distance to its sun was between 207 million and 251 million kilometers. This made it easy to derive both a distance for a 'Coruscant light-year' and a 'Coruscant parsec'. Unbeknownst to me, Spanky the Dolphin had already performed the necessary calculations, almost a year on the day
before I posted. Spanky had given a more precise value than I did. Spanky showed that a 'Coruscant light-year' is 9 531 961 160 601 kilometers, and a 'Coruscant parsec' is 4.95 light-years.

Again no problem from me here as long as you don't confuse a 'Coruscant light-year' with a lightyear, nor a 'Coruscant parsec' with a parsec.
Which is the point of the whole discussion (well, the lesser half of it anyway): the equating of a lightyear in dialogue with a 'Coruscant lightyear'.
Thus when Padmé states a distance of "within 3.3 lightyears" I hold that to mean within 3.3 x 9.461x10^15 meters, not 3.3 x 9.53x10^15 meters, which is your position.

Actually I do have one (semi-grievous) problem with what Spanky the Dolphin wrote: "a 'Coruscant light-year' is 9 531 961 160 601 kilometers" is not acceptable since the sources for the calculation have only 3 significant numbers!
Thus it can at best be stated that "a 'Coruscant light-year' is 9.53x10^12 kilometers = 9.53x10^15 meters."

I will give more substance in the next post, but I hope that this is something that you could react on. Have a nice weekend, HVB (and the rest of you)!

Reaction hereby posted.

btw. we seem to be out of "rest of you" on this thread (unless there are any read-only visitors ).

[Mange]

I will have a look on your objections and continue to prepare my next meatier post.

btw. we seem to be out of "rest of you" on this thread (unless there are any read-only visitors ).

Yeah, agreed. It would be interesting to know how the rest of you feels.

[Lord Sander]

Yeah, I'm a read-only visitor of the thread. Keep going.

So, the Coruscant parsec is 4.95 Coruscant light years, correct? Is that a rounded number? Coz I want to add it to my Master Converter

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Earth light years, actually.

[hvb]

And yes it is a rounded value in a sense (all values are unless they are set by definition rather then measured, e.g. the length of a second or pi ).

But as the source material values for the calculation (207 million and 251 million kilometers) only has 3 significant numbers it would be unscientific to give a value calculated with these, allready rounded values, more digits then their 3.
If you are a stickler for detail you could add an error size assessment. e.g. 4.95+/-0.005 ly (just a guess at the possible deviation, didn't have time to do the math)

[Spanky The Dolphin]

HVB, did it ever occur to you that I got the values for each procedure from two different sources?

The parsec calculations are supposed to be more conforming to SI representations of numbers and decimals. The light year difference values are based on the length of a light year that I found on Wikipedia, which listed it down to the ones value.

Not to mention that the parsec calculations were done more than a year ago as a "quick-and-dirty" math job, while the recent light year calcs were done within the past two months or so.

Nitpick and concession accepted, punk.

[hvb]

Well, shame on me for bad research!

Sure, you did use another source Spanky, let me just quote your comment earlyer in the thread:

SW light years are virtually the same as ours, only about .05% longer, I think.

EDIT: Okay found out. Since Standard years are three days longer, (368 vs 365), their light years are actually about 1.008 times longer than ours:

RL LY: 9,460,730,472,580 km
SW LY: 9,538,489,901,122 km

368 days vs 365 days (not even 368 vs 365.25), thats still only 3 digits, so guess what: by some unexplained yet fortuitous happenstance the nitpick still holds.

btw. is that 368 days listed as the stellar year or the solar year? Was the source the Ep1 ICS or something else, if so what (canonality)?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Unless you have more than just pointless nitpicking, I'm going to ignore you.

I mean seriously, where does this shit get you? This is all the information we can work with, so what the hell do you want?!

[hvb]

No, this is just nitpicking. Sorry if this annoys you unduly; you are of course free to ignore me, although it gets difficult having a conversation that way.

Did some checking on my own: Saxton mentions Galaxy Guide 2 as the source for comparing Coruscant plantary standards and known units (like the density of water and metric kilometres), so I'll guess the latter is the source.

[Cyke]

Even without establishing the length of a SW parsec, I think there's an issue in the disparity between the way the distance between Tatooine and Geonosis were referred to (or not referred to) in dialogue.

Amidala mentioned that Geonosis was "only a parsec away", implying that it was a short distance, by their standards.

In the Kenobi-Luke and Kenobi-Jinn conversations, however, no mention of Geonosis comes up. Years later, when he speaks to Luke, he makes no mention of Geonosis, which is the closest inhabited world (well, or at least pretty close).

In the former case, it's strange that Obi-Wan would not mention the site of such a momentous occassion, not to mention the historical significance of Geonosis as the site of the first open hostilities of the Clone Wars.
In the latter case, even if Geonosis was indeed established to be an ally of the Trade Federation, you'd think they would have at least made a passing reference because of the particular unsuitability of the venue as a layover location.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I believe we have already covered that in a previous thread.

[Mange]

HVB (and the rest of you) I will post some astrophysical stuff later today that makes it little easier to understand the arguments.