Special effects glitch in Episode III

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2005-12-28 02:37pm

Crazedwraith wrote:
Kwizard wrote:Question: does Coruscant have to import oxygen? It would seem like it, since the planet's practically covered in ultra-urban development.
Nope, they do have co2 --> 02 plants though. Ones described in NJO: Rebel Stand. A small tank of goo that does the job of several acres of forest.

Ah, of course. That'd be a strange public service though... "oxygen tax."

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-12-28 02:38pm

I wonder how long it will take for someone to use this as "proof" That courscont is 'Earth'

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2005-12-28 02:56pm

Coruscant can't be Earth. It's in a different relative part of the galaxy. Besides, the galaxies are different sizes.,

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2005-12-28 05:45pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Coruscant can't be Earth. It's in a different relative part of the galaxy. Besides, the galaxies are different sizes.,

Not to mention that Coruscant has at least 2 moons and heavier surface gravity than Earth according to the SWTC.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-12-29 02:08pm

The Star Wars galaxy also has two sataellite dwarf galaxies.

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2005-12-29 04:57pm

Cykeisme wrote:The Star Wars galaxy also has two sataellite dwarf galaxies.

And the Milky Way has the Large Megallanic and Small Megallanic Clouds. However, this doesn't mean that the Galaxy Far, Far Away and the Milky Way are the same. Companion galaxies and/or stellar clusters are not uncommon in the universe, after all.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2005-12-29 05:16pm

Vicious wrote:
Cykeisme wrote:The Star Wars galaxy also has two sataellite dwarf galaxies.
And the Milky Way has the Large Megallanic and Small Megallanic Clouds. However, this doesn't mean that the Galaxy Far, Far Away and the Milky Way are the same. Companion galaxies and/or stellar clusters are not uncommon in the universe, after all.

Which are elypical galaxies and the ones on the map in AotC are definatally spiral galaxies. And the Magallanic Clouds are in the same vicinity while the ones on the map are on opposite sides of the Galaxy.

The two are nothing alike and such pairings are common as you indicated.

Begs the thought. If the Star Wars Galaxy has two spirals orbiting it them that might indicate that it is larger than our own galaxy!

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-12-29 05:32pm

Isolder74 wrote:
Vicious wrote:
Cykeisme wrote:The Star Wars galaxy also has two sataellite dwarf galaxies.
And the Milky Way has the Large Megallanic and Small Megallanic Clouds. However, this doesn't mean that the Galaxy Far, Far Away and the Milky Way are the same. Companion galaxies and/or stellar clusters are not uncommon in the universe, after all.
Which are elypical galaxies and the ones on the map in AotC are definatally spiral galaxies. And the Magallanic Clouds are in the same vicinity while the ones on the map are on opposite sides of the Galaxy.

The two are nothing alike and such pairings are common as you indicated.

Begs the thought. If the Star Wars Galaxy has two spirals orbiting it them that might indicate that it is larger than our own galaxy!

Official sources, such as the novel Shield of Lies but also reference works such as the DK books, has showed that the galactic disc is larger than the Milky Way's and that it contains 400 billion stars. Since the satellite galaxies appears to be genuine spiral galaxies, they shouldn't be less than 15,000 light-years across (as IIRC, the smallest known galaxy with something that resembles a spiral structure is around is almost 15,000 ly across).

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2005-12-29 06:04pm

Not to mention that Coruscant has at least 2 moons and heavier surface gravity than Earth according to the SWTC.

Dang, living on that planet must suck. No real trees or forests, and heavy gravity. That said, the architecture and nightlife does represent definite upside...

Ideally if you were going to live in the SW galaxy, I think what you'd want to do would be to have a luxury condo or apartment on Coruscant, and a villa on Naboo, plus your own private yacht for travel between the two worlds.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-12-30 08:15am

Perhaps the gravity is artificially reduced, at least in local areas (either upscale districts or possibly individual buildings). On the other hand, if you live there long enough you probably get used to it.

Side question: would the human body be able to adapt to slightly increased gravity (say, 10-20% more)? By "adapt" I'm not talking about mutation and natural selection altering the gene pool.. I mean a regular guy growing up on a high grav world.

RThurmont wrote:Ideally if you were going to live in the SW galaxy, I think what you'd want to do would be to have a luxury condo or apartment on Coruscant, and a villa on Naboo, plus your own private yacht for travel between the two worlds.

Good times.. good times.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-12-30 10:57am

I'm pretty sure Coruscant has a few imported parks/forests for recreation, so it wouldn't be so bad... But if you had a fear of heights, Coruscant would not be the place for you.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-30 02:08pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I'm pretty sure Coruscant has a few imported parks/forests for recreation, so it wouldn't be so bad... But if you had a fear of heights, Coruscant would not be the place for you.

Especially considering that the Star Wars Culture has an apparent aversion to safety rails. Those that are succeptible to vertigo and/or likely to loose their balance at an opportune moment should avoid Courascant and other super-cities.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-12-30 04:13pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I'm pretty sure Coruscant has a few imported parks/forests for recreation, so it wouldn't be so bad... But if you had a fear of heights, Coruscant would not be the place for you.
Especially considering that the Star Wars Culture has an apparent aversion to safety rails. Those that are succeptible to vertigo and/or likely to loose their balance at an opportune moment should avoid Courascant and other super-cities.

Yeah.. Naboo's more my style, honestly.

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2006-01-06 10:18am

Isolder74 wrote:
Vicious wrote:
Cykeisme wrote:The Star Wars galaxy also has two sataellite dwarf galaxies.
And the Milky Way has the Large Megallanic and Small Megallanic Clouds. However, this doesn't mean that the Galaxy Far, Far Away and the Milky Way are the same. Companion galaxies and/or stellar clusters are not uncommon in the universe, after all.
Which are elypical galaxies and the ones on the map in AotC are definatally spiral galaxies. And the Magallanic Clouds are in the same vicinity while the ones on the map are on opposite sides of the Galaxy.

The two are nothing alike and such pairings are common as you indicated.

Begs the thought. If the Star Wars Galaxy has two spirals orbiting it them that might indicate that it is larger than our own galaxy!

I don't recall the map of the SW galaxy, but I'll take your word for it and have to check next time I watch AoTC. As to the point I was making, I was simply pointing out that just because the SW galaxy had two satellite galaxies didn't render it unique in the universe, owing to the fact that our own galaxy has a pair, of, albeit much smaller, companions. I wasn't using it as evidence for them being similar, though I could see how that conclusion could be drawn from what I wrote.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2006-01-06 10:25am

Vicious wrote:I don't recall the map of the SW galaxy, but I'll take your word for it and have to check next time I watch AoTC. As to the point I was making, I was simply pointing out that just because the SW galaxy had two satellite galaxies didn't render it unique in the universe, owing to the fact that our own galaxy has a pair, of, albeit much smaller, companions. I wasn't using it as evidence for them being similar, though I could see how that conclusion could be drawn from what I wrote.

it's in part of the libary scene when Obi-wan is trying to locate Kamino

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-01-06 11:12am

I'm really curious about this yellow submarine.

Also, someone growing up on a high-grav world (I have no proof for this, just speculation) would be shorter and stockier. WHile a low-grav worlder would be tall and thin.

000 · Post by **000** » 2006-01-06 05:28pm

Where is it ever stated that Coruscant has a higher-than-normal gravity? I've asked before, but don't remember getting a straight answer.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-01-06 06:00pm

000 wrote:Where is it ever stated that Coruscant has a higher-than-normal gravity? I've asked before, but don't remember getting a straight answer.

Galaxy Guide 2 in a roundabout fashion.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/units.html#planets

000 · Post by **000** » 2006-01-06 06:38pm

Ah, thanks.

Is this still valid though, with new material and the release of the prequels? I've seen nothing to suggest that Coruscant has a higher gravity than earth's.

Then there's the whole Coruscant-as-human-homeworld thing from the NEC, but I'd prefer if that was interpreted as in-universe BS.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2006-01-06 07:27pm

Hmm, it should be pretty easy to tell (from visuals) if gravitational acceleration on Coruscant's surface was over 1.4 times greater than Earth's, right?
Would movie visuals override the (extrapolated) information from Galaxy Guide 2 then?

Oh, in case anyone misunderstood, when I earlier I pointed out that the Star Wars galaxy has two smaller satellite galaxies, I meant it as evidence that it cannot be our galaxy. Of course, the words "a galaxy far, far away" should be enough of a hint, I suppose.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-01-06 07:36pm

Cykeisme wrote:Hmm, it should be pretty easy to tell (from visuals) if gravitational acceleration on Coruscant's surface was over 1.4 times greater than Earth's, right?
Would movie visuals override the (extrapolated) information from Galaxy Guide 2 then?

Oh, in case anyone misunderstood, when I earlier I pointed out that the Star Wars galaxy has two smaller satellite galaxies, I meant it as evidence that it cannot be our galaxy. Of course, the words "a galaxy far, far away" should be enough of a hint, I suppose.

As additional evidence against the inane notion that the Milky Way is the GFFA, Wikipedia's interpritation of the GFFA's galactic class would mean that they aren't even the same type (Sb as compared to SBb.) Wikipedia's analysis is hardly conclusive, but it makes sense.