[Psyborg] Size of the Star Wars Galixy?

[Lord Revan]

taking into account how specific condition to have capabilities to support life, it's not unjustified to assume that majority of star systems in the Empire are uncolonized (perhaps not even having any planets what so ever).

[Wyrm]

Did this piece of shit Darkstar troll actually think he could pass this off here again? These little pre-schoolers are really hurting since their board went down.

M' man, Lord Poe, do you know this fuckwit personally, or just the type?

[Lord Poe]

M' man, Lord Poe, do you know this fuckwit personally, or just the type?

Just the type. He's here to troll, espousing the gospel according to Darkstar.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

By the way, one of the ICS books (Ep. 1 or 2) states that Padme's senatorial system is about 40,000 settled dependencies and 56 full-member worlds, with a million barren stars (I'm sorry if this is a bit off, doing it from memory), proving that their galaxy is fairly massive.

[Perseid]

Jesus are we running Trolls R Us atm

Psyborg, as others have already said the SW Galaxy is larger than ours is, with the 1 million systems under Imperial control being inhabited systems.

The Milky Way may have 200 Billion stars, but only a certain number have planets, and even those systems with planets there is still only a small chance that they are habitable.
So even assuming half of the stars in our Galaxy have planets, there could well be only a million or so planets that are even habitable. Now assuming the SW Galaxy is the same size as the Milky Way (which it's not) lets work it out

200,000,000,000 Stars
100,000,000,000 of which have planets of one form or another
The Galactic Empire controls roughly 2/3 of the galaxy, accounting for The Unknown regions and other minor powers that exist.
So 1,000,000 systems isn't that problematic it's only
1/200000th of the number of stars in the galaxy, and 1/100000th of the possible planets.

Given the chances of life evolving in the first place, it's not unreasonable

[Psyborg]

Jesus are we running Trolls R Us atm

Psyborg, as others have already said the SW Galaxy is larger than ours is, with the 1 million systems under Imperial control being inhabited systems.

The Milky Way may have 200 Billion stars, but only a certain number have planets, and even those systems with planets there is still only a small chance that they are habitable.
So even assuming half of the stars in our Galaxy have planets, there could well be only a million or so planets that are even habitable. Now assuming the SW Galaxy is the same size as the Milky Way (which it's not) lets work it out

200,000,000,000 Stars
100,000,000,000 of which have planets of one form or another
The Galactic Empire controls roughly 2/3 of the galaxy, accounting for The Unknown regions and other minor powers that exist.
So 1,000,000 systems isn't that problematic it's only
1/200000th of the number of stars in the galaxy, and 1/100000th of the possible planets.

Given the chances of life evolving in the first place, it's not unreasonable

1. If the "G" level quote on the "Modiest size" of the SW Galixy does not over ride the "C" level quote of 120,000LY, Why not?

2. Your analysis is flawed by poor assumptions;
2A. most of the stars in this Galixy have planets not half or even close to half.
2B. If the distribution of habitable systems is uniform or even semi-uniform then the coverage of the "Million systems at 2/3s of the Galixy implies a very small dimention galixy.
2C. The map of the SW Galixy in the SW Roll playing game core rule book, which is "C" level canon, and shows all the various named systems, lists the distances and times for travel. If the speeds shown to exact standards in the movies are corelated with the rule book, the resulting size of the galixy must be smaller than the other "C" level canon book states!

[SirNitram]

1. If the "G" level quote on the "Modiest size" of the SW Galixy does not over ride the "C" level quote of 120,000LY, Why not?

Define why 'modest sized' must be 'smaller than 120,000LY'.

2. Your analysis is flawed by poor assumptions;
2A. most of the stars in this Galixy have planets not half or even close to half.

Outright, total lie.

2B. If the distribution of habitable systems is uniform or even semi-uniform then the coverage of the "Million systems at 2/3s of the Galixy implies a very small dimention galixy.

Outright lie based on 2A. Most worlds are not habitable.

2C. The map of the SW Galixy in the SW Roll playing game core rule book, which is "C" level canon, and shows all the various named systems, lists the distances and times for travel. If the speeds shown to exact standards in the movies are corelated with the rule book, the resulting size of the galixy must be smaller than the other "C" level canon book states!

The RPG is completely out of line with the movies in this instance, and is therefore ignorable.

You're such a fucking worthless hypocrit troll. You claim everyone else is cherrypicking, but wank off to one source only and expect it.. And an RPG source to boot! ..To beat everything else.

[Crossroads Inc.]

2A. most of the stars in this Galixy have planets not half or even close to half.

Um, I may not wish to step into an actual debate here. Lord knows my Facts and Figure skills are sub par compared to others... But, I do know my Astronomy and regular read several Journals of the study of space...

To date we have observed, categorized and labelled BILLIONS Of Stars. Of all of these stars so far, we have found less then 100 planets.

This is not to say that there are not more planets out there in the Galaxy. Indeed each year we discover a few more planets. However, astronomers study and observe hundreds of Stars before finding a single planet.

Your assertion that "Most of the Stars in the Galaxy have planets" would mean that for ever star we search, the odds of finding a planet should be higher then 50%

I would like to ask if this where so how you can explain the extreme lack of planets in the stars searched by others.

[brianeyci]

Well I took the SW:RCRB out of mothball, and looks like you're full of shit. Travel time = base travel time x hyperdrive multiplier. Take Table 11-3 on Page 206, travelling from the Core Worlds to the Outer Rim and you get 96 hours. Even from the core worlds to the unknown regions you get 144 hours. Now taking the fastest ship at x1 multiplier that would mean days in between travel, and obviously in the movies Anakin didn't survive for days after having his arms and legs chopped off. So the RCRB is wrong.

Brian

[Darth Servo]

You are not reading my post. I did not state in compairison to our Galixy. I stated that modest must mean that it is smaller than average. Whatever average is. I infact asked does any one here know the average size of galixies?[/quote]
ATOC shows that the SW galaxy has two smaller satelite galaxies. If the SW galaxy is "below average" in size, wouldn't it make those two satelites too small to be galaxies?

[Edi]

Um, I may not wish to step into an actual debate here. Lord knows my Facts and Figure skills are sub par compared to others... But, I do know my Astronomy and regular read several Journals of the study of space...

To date we have observed, categorized and labelled BILLIONS Of Stars. Of all of these stars so far, we have found less then 100 planets.

This is not to say that there are not more planets out there in the Galaxy. Indeed each year we discover a few more planets. However, astronomers study and observe hundreds of Stars before finding a single planet.

Your assertion that "Most of the Stars in the Galaxy have planets" would mean that for ever star we search, the odds of finding a planet should be higher then 50%

I would like to ask if this where so how you can explain the extreme lack of planets in the stars searched by others.

Your logic here is flawed. To date we have only been able to find very large planets, ones that have enough mass to cause gravitational disturbances big enough to be noticed from light years or dozens of or even hundreds of light years away. That means we'll only find the really damned big ones with our current equipment. Our own solar system has numerous small planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and then Pluto and the other KBOs in its vicinity). Our sun is from all accounts I've heard a relatively ordinary star of its type, so there is no reason to assume that all the other similar stars out there would have radically different structures in their solar systems. In all probability, they do have planets, but they do not necessarily have planets big enough to allow us to see them.

Much like microscopes in the late 19th century were not good enough and accurate enough to allow us to see certain types of microbes that were very small, it's the same with our stargazing equipment.

Based on observation so far, the theory of most stars having planets is sound. That the probability of detecting any given planet should be 50% or greater does not immediately follow, though.

Edi

[The Dark]

It's also flawed because we can only find large planets with quick years. It takes at least one full orbit to be certain we're really detecting a planet, so nothing with a period of over six or seven years can be detected right now. Another system similar to Sol's, with a gas giant at 11 light years, would currently be listed as not having planets, because we don't have enough information at the moment to determine that. The next couple years will see a far greater number of systems announced as having planets, with some of the systems having the prospect of earth-like worlds in the inner system.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ah, see this is why I am tepid about coming into Debates of this scale. I knew that it is so far impossible to detect planets of a certain size, and thusly there could be many more planets out there then we have already found. (I think I did mention that)

None the less, the core of the aurgument of the thread was along the lines of "The Empire has X Starsystems/planets, so therefor the Galaxy must have X stars." just seems on the face of it a bit of a distortion.

[Edi]

None the less, the core of the aurgument of the thread was along the lines of "The Empire has X Starsystems/planets, so therefor the Galaxy must have X stars." just seems on the face of it a bit of a distortion.

A bit? There's an understatement if I ever saw one. It's being outright dishonest and a lying fuckwit, which is exactly what Psyborg is being.

Edi

[wilfulton]

Instead of Wookipaedia try NASA instead. They state; g"Glixies range in size from 1,000LY to 1,000,000 LY and that the Milky Way has 200 million stars." Furthermore they state that the majority of stars have planets. No where does the canon state that they must be "Habitable" or exactly what is habitable to count toward the million canon count. In fact there is canon evidence that in-hospitable planets are numbered among the count. Like cloud city and which ever planet it is on.

I searched NASA's site for "Glixies" and came back with the following:

Did you mean: galaxies



No results containing your search terms were found.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords that mean the same thing.
- Try more general keywords.

[Perseid]

^lmao that is t3h funny

[Wyrm]

^lmao that is t3h funny

He lied about everything else. Why not the Google search string?

[Perseid]

Look, psyborg, rather than acting like a dipshit troll, which is how your acting at the moment, provide some evidence to support your claim that the SW Galaxy (thats how you spell galaxy by the way, not Gilixy) is "smaller than average", which is your definition of moderate.

So you'll need to prove the average size of galaxies, and then prove that the SW galaxy is smaller than this average size, and we will of course be expecting calculations and sources rather than BS claims that are sure fire indicators of a troll.

*sits back with smug, knowing smile* that request should produce fuck all from him, except some dipshit troll come back

[Connor MacLeod]

You know, debating this guy would be alot more consistent if he would stop inconsistently applying when and when not canon/EU sources are acceptable (ie: he uses either when its convenient for him, and dismisses either when its not.)

[Perseid]

You know, debating this guy would be alot more consistent if he would stop inconsistently applying when and when not canon/EU sources are acceptable (ie: he uses either when its convenient for him, and dismisses either when its not.)

Hmmm sounds like he's attended "the Darkstar International Practical ScHool for unIntelligent Twats" take the capitals out only

[The Dark]

Ah, see this is why I am tepid about coming into Debates of this scale. I knew that it is so far impossible to detect planets of a certain size, and thusly there could be many more planets out there then we have already found. (I think I did mention that)

None the less, the core of the aurgument of the thread was along the lines of "The Empire has X Starsystems/planets, so therefor the Galaxy must have X stars." just seems on the face of it a bit of a distortion.

It certainly is. Optimistic estimates are that ~50% of stars have planets (not inhabitable worlds, just planets). Pessimistic estimates are < 10%. Since we don't know which is accurate for our own galaxy, let alone another galaxy, any estimate would be, at best, a WAG.

[Lord Poe]

Is this that fuckin' idiot GStone trolling because he no longer has a home board?

[Stuart Mackey]

*checks post* Nope. I did not spell Galaxy, nor did I spell it wrong. Must be talking to some one else....whew....

Indeed, for Psyborg wrote in the thread's title and his OP and probably elsewhere "galixy".

In context; I'm probably the worst offender, or about, grammar wise or spelling in particular when it comes to long term members.

Rubbish, that honour belongs to myself..or maybe Colin....

[Vympel]

Is this that fuckin' idiot GStone trolling because he no longer has a home board?

GStone could spell.

[Lord Revan]

ok here's the Stats for Chommell sector

• 36 member systems (including the capital system of the sector (Naboo))
• 40,000 colonies
• 300,000,000 uninhabited systems

Source:AOTC:ICS

assuming that Chommell sector isn't really atypical (being a midrim sector it shouldn't be), The Empire has between 25 and 2777 sectors with just 1,000,000 systems depending if the colonies are included in the system count.

so the SW galaxy has 7,500,000,000-833,100,000,000 systems depending on if colonies were or were not included in system count that Tarkin gave.
(note: this ignores the Chiss space and other non imperial space).