[Psyborg] Size of the Star Wars Galixy?

[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).

Ghetto edit:we know from ROTS Novelization that even with 2000 senators opposing him Palpatine has super majority in the senate (I don't know what this mens apart of that there's clearly over 4000 senators in the Republic/Imperial senate during ROTS) meaning that highest estimate of 2777 sectors could be conservative.

[Noble Ire]

Ghetto edit:we know from ROTS Novelization that even with 2000 senators opposing him Palpatine has super majority in the senate (I don't know what this mens apart of that there's clearly over 4000 senators in the Republic/Imperial senate during ROTS) meaning that highest estimate of 2777 sectors could be conservative.

Also keep in mind that a large number of senators left during the CIS was formed, either to join it, or leave in protest of Palpatine's later actions. Since all rebellious territories were eventually reassimilated, the number is boosted quite a bit (I also doubt more than half the senate opposed Palpatine during ROTS).

[Ender]

I'd imagine a supermajority is in excess of 2/3rds. That's what you need to pass the stuf he did if I remember Publis' comments correctly.

[Wyrm]

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).

Ghetto edit:we know from ROTS Novelization that even with 2000 senators opposing him Palpatine has super majority in the senate (I don't know what this mens apart of that there's clearly over 4000 senators in the Republic/Imperial senate during ROTS) meaning that highest estimate of 2777 sectors could be conservative.

How many senators per sector?

Also, I would expect there is a bias towards sectors of small size. Look at any distribution of sizes of the way territory is divided up on our planet, and you see this bias. Consider a list of US states by land area:

1. over 500,000 mi^2 : 1
2. 500,000 - 100,000 mi^2 : 7
3. 100,000 - 75,000 mi^2 : 9
4. 75,000 - 50,000 mi^2 : 14
5. 50,000 - 25,000 mi^2 : 10
6. below 25,000 mi^2 : 9

And for other countries on this here green Earth:

1. over 10^7 km^2 : 1
2. 10^7 - 10^6 km^2 : 29
3. 10^6 - 10^5 km^2 : 78
4. 10^5 - 10^4 km^2 : 58
5. 10^4 - 10^3 km^2 : 18
6. below 10^3 km^2 : 52

It's easy to see how these biases can come about. In a space of fixed volume, one large territory leaves that much less territory to divide among the other territories, so they will tend to be smaller. A few large territories taking up most of the volume leaves smaller territories the dregs. If you put all the names of these territories into a hat and draw one at random, the odds of drawing one of the larger territories is small.

Now, mentioning the 2000 senators opposed to Palpatine is hardly remarkable if it forms a small fraction of the opposition, so the number of senators is on the order of 2000 senators and no less than 4000 senators, as per Revan's argument. But "supermajority" implies more than a simple majority (2000 + 1). If we assume for the sake of argument that "supermajority" in the Senate means 2/3rds majority, then there are about 6000 senators in the Senate.

Revan's numbers implies that 2777 sectors gives us 833 billion systems. But, of course, you can't represent more systems than you have, and Mike on the main page notes this is around 400 billion stars/systems (including metal-poor halo stars, which nobody wants to represent). But this figure of 2777 sectors is about half the number our supermajority calculation gets. If 6000 senators is a reasonable calculation, and the assumptions that each sector gets a single senator and that Chommell sector is an average sector both hold, then there are 3.6 trillion systems and at least that number of stars in the SW galaxy. As galaxies go, that's HUGE. M87 has a star count on the same order, and it is considered a giant as galaxies go (the most populated galaxy known). Since we know that the SW galaxy isn't that big, either each sector has more than one senator, or the Chommell sector is on the large side as sectors go.

For a senatorial system of a fixed number of senators per sector, it's good to be small, for each citizen is represented by more senator.

[Lord Revan]

As we don't know what does an average sector is like in SW I used Chommell as bench mark and divided the number of Imperial systems with the number of member systems ion the chommell sector for the higher sector count (2777) (then multiplied the sector count with the number of uninhabited systems in Chommell sector), it was never meant to an accurate estimate but rather an upper limit (and the main purpose was to show that in SW not every system is inhabited and that even with 1,000,000 systems the SW galaxy could around the same size as the Milky Way)

I belive that the ratio between Member, Colony and Uninhabited worlds varies between sector (as does total number of systems per sector) and that there's no rational reason to assume that the SW Galaxy is not as big as the EU says it is.

I except Mike's numbers (after they are with in my limits of 7,500,000,000 (Lower) and 833,100,000,000 (upper)

it's likely that the Core sectors have less (if any) colonies compared to Chommel sector (a Mid Rim sector) also the size of the core sectors (in Volume and number of systems) could lower (though the Population per sector is probaly higher)

[Wyrm]

As we don't know what does an average sector is like in SW I used Chommell as bench mark and divided the number of Imperial systems with the number of member systems ion the chommell sector for the higher sector count (2777) (then multiplied the sector count with the number of uninhabited systems in Chommell sector), it was never meant to an accurate estimate but rather an upper limit (and the main purpose was to show that in SW not every system is inhabited and that even with 1,000,000 systems the SW galaxy could around the same size as the Milky Way)

I'm not accusing you of anything. It's just that your figure is not squaring away with the fact that Palpatine had a supermajority, and there were 2000 dissenators against him. That leads to the conclusion (under the assumption that Palpy needs a 2/3 supermajority to push things through) that the Senate is somewhere north (but likely within an order of magnitude of) 6000 senators. Under one-senator-per-sector, this means that there are at least 6000 sectors, which if Chommell is an average sector, leads to a minimum galaxy size of 3.6e13 systems (and at least as many stars), which is far too large.

Remember, if the number of senators in the senate is 2777, then having 2000 dissenting senators means you absolutely don't have a supermajority.

I belive that the ratio between Member, Colony and Uninhabited worlds varies between sector (as does total number of systems per sector) and that there's no rational reason to assume that the SW Galaxy is not as big as the EU says it is.

I except Mike's numbers (after they are with in my limits of 7,500,000,000 (Lower) and 833,100,000,000 (upper)

it's likely that the Core sectors have less (if any) colonies compared to Chommel sector (a Mid Rim sector) also the size of the core sectors (in Volume and number of systems) could lower (though the Population per sector is probaly higher)

Of course. But let's check your raw data again.

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

Source:AOTC:ICS

Notice that the number of uninhabited systems dominates both the number of member systems and the number of colonies, so to first order, the number of uninhabited systems determines the total number of systems in a sector. The number of colonies or member worlds in a sector is largely unimportant.

After that, it's just a matter of binning the star systems in the SW galaxy into each sector, keeping in mind that the total number of stars in the galaxy is greater than the number of stars represented in the Senate.

[Wyrm]

Ghetto Edit: 6000 sectors of Chommell sector size gives 3.6e12 systems. Bleah.

[Lord Revan]

Ghetto Edit: 6000 sectors of Chommell sector size gives 3.6e12 systems. Bleah.

it's too big any way

ok this is what we know the Empire was 1,000,000 system (refer probaly to member systems)
even 2000 senators opposing him Palpatine has super majority during ROTS
and we know the republic systems during ROTS<Imperial systems

(assuming supermajority mean at least 2/3) th republic had at least 6000 senators (though we do know that some systems had more then 1 senator (Dac/Mon Calmari and Naboo had 2(though Jar-Jar Binks might not have been a full Senator)

[Noble Ire]

though Jar-Jar Binks might not have been a full Senator)

He wasn't. Jar Jar simply served as Padme's proxy, a vice-senator if you will.

Has there been any figure given on the size of the CIS at the end of the Clone Wars? That number would have to be added to the Senate-represented figure for an accurate approximation of the Galactic Empire's size.

[RThurmont]

He wasn't. Jar Jar simply served as Padme's proxy, a vice-senator if you will.

His exact title was Representative Binks. Since no indication is given that a lower house existed in the Republic congress, one must assume that such proxies are called "representatives" in the Republic system.

[Wyrm]

Ghetto Edit: 6000 sectors of Chommell sector size gives 3.6e12 systems. Bleah.

it's too big any way

And I was trying to multiply 6x6 for the mantissa in that figure instead of 6x3; 1.8e12 (1.8 trillion).

ok this is what we know the Empire was 1,000,000 system (refer probaly to member systems)

Not relevant to my figure, which was calculated from the dissenator-size, and applies to the size of the Republic (ROTS).

Unless you're willing to part with the idea that there is one senator for each sector, or that 2/3 constituted a supermajority in that Senate, you're forced into the conclusion that the Chommell sector is larger than average.

even 2000 senators opposing him Palpatine has super majority during ROTS
and we know the republic systems during ROTS<Imperial systems

Yep. But both the Empire and Republic (ROTS) < Entire Galaxy. Since I come up with a figure for the Republic that's bigger than the entire SW galaxy by almost an order of magnitude, then something's wrong with one of my assumptions. The only three real assumptions I made was that 2/3 was the supermajority, there was one senator representing each sector, and that the Chommell sector was an average-sized sector. Choose one to give up.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with saying that the Chommell sector is 4 (or more) times the galactic average. Chommell would be the Texas of the SW galaxy, but without the power in the Electoral College or the House!

(assuming supermajority mean at least 2/3) th republic had at least 6000 senators (though we do know that some systems had more then 1 senator (Dac/Mon Calmari and Naboo had 2(though Jar-Jar Binks might not have been a full Senator)

There's some quibble about that. See Noble Ire's comment.

[brianeyci]

Why is there any doubt about the size of the senate? Can't you just take screenshots of the senate and approximate the number of pods?

Brian

[RedImperator]

Perhaps Psyborg would care to point out the astronomical evidence for extremely tiny spiral galaxies, since every single observed spiral is within an order of magnitude of the size of the Milky Way, and it seems likely that there's a certain limit below which it is impossible for the spiral structure to form.

[wilfulton]

Perhaps Psyborg would care to point out the astronomical evidence for extremely tiny spiral galaxies, since every single observed spiral is within an order of magnitude of the size of the Milky Way, and it seems likely that there's a certain limit below which it is impossible for the spiral structure to form.

Perhaps, but I won't hold out too much faith, my reasoning is below.

It seems to me that this site and it's users pick and choose which items they will use and ignore those that do not fit into their preconcieved notion of how things should be.

Seems to me that people who dis this site and it's users pick and chose which items they will use and ignore those that do not fit into their preconcieved notion of how things should be.

[RThurmont]

Why is there any doubt about the size of the senate? Can't you just take screenshots of the senate and approximate the number of pods?

You could, if you had:

(a) No life at all.
(b) Buttloads of spare time.
(c) The patience of Job combined with impeccable attention to detail.

I don't think any of us on this site is sufficiently "enthusiastic" about Star Wars to be willing to undertake such an agonizing exercise of triviality. Suffice it to say, its obvious there are quite a few thousand people in that chamber, and equally obvious that Palpatine's supporters had, by far and away, a majority.

[Surlethe]

You could, if you had:

(a) No life at all.
(b) Buttloads of spare time.
(c) The patience of Job combined with impeccable attention to detail.

I don't think any of us on this site is sufficiently "enthusiastic" about Star Wars to be willing to undertake such an agonizing exercise of triviality. Suffice it to say, its obvious there are quite a few thousand people in that chamber, and equally obvious that Palpatine's supporters had, by far and away, a majority.

Actually, it appears the Senate pod design is based on a Fibonacci spiral; it would thus suffice to count the number of pods in one spiral, and then multiply by the appropriate Fibonacci number to obtain a reasonably accurate approximation of the number of Senate pods. That would take no more than fifteen or twenty minutes with a RotS screenshot, I think.

[RThurmont]

Actually, it appears the Senate pod design is based on a Fibonacci spiral; it would thus suffice to count the number of pods in one spiral, and then multiply by the appropriate Fibonacci number to obtain a reasonably accurate approximation of the number of Senate pods. That would take no more than fifteen or twenty minutes with a RotS screenshot, I think.

Ah superb, forgive my stupid assumption that it would require manual counting. Do you feel up to the challenge of doing this calculation for us Surlethe?

[Noble Ire]

Actually, it appears the Senate pod design is based on a Fibonacci spiral; it would thus suffice to count the number of pods in one spiral, and then multiply by the appropriate Fibonacci number to obtain a reasonably accurate approximation of the number of Senate pods. That would take no more than fifteen or twenty minutes with a RotS screenshot, I think.

Ah superb, forgive my stupid assumption that it would require manual counting. Do you feel up to the challenge of doing this calculation for us Surlethe?

If someone was to do this, I would recommend TPM. It has the most wide shots of the chamber (IIRC), and would have them most complete count, assuming that the rotunda is modified if large numbers of senators are removed or added (it probably isn't, but just to be sure).

[RThurmont]

The TPM rotunda always struck me as seeming a bit larger than the rotundas in AOTC or ROTS, for some reason, but I must admit historically I haven't paid that much attention. Being somewhat of a fan of parliamentary chamber architecture, I was hugely dissappointed by the somewhat bland visual execution of the Senate chamber in the Phantom Menace (well, bland by my exacting standards, anyway).

[Psyborg]

All of the arguments are from the lessor canon and as such they are less realivant are they not?

The cruxt of the argument boils down to the average size of galixies and how much smaller than this figure the word Modest means. I would think that to be realivant the word "modest" must mean something say less than 80% of the average size. In fact if we were to assume that a meaningfull differance would require at least one standard deviation the the word "Modest" must be slightly smaller than 78% of the average size of the total population of galixies.

If "Modest" does not have a significant meaning then why use the word at all? Since the discriptive word "Modest" was used, then it follows that it must be significant and important. Therefore, it is not subject to debate Vs "Lessor canon" is it?

The ICS has been shown to have other errors of fact as shown by "G" canon and is sertainly not more significant than the other "G" canon refferances. Since the figure of 120,000LY from the ICS can not possably be correct, then it must be discounted! Using any refferance from the lessor canon would automaticaly impune your argument. Therefore, the Galixy must be smaller than average size, because that is the "G" canon requirment.

[Keevan_Colton]

One word. Bullshit.

Your entire argument is based upon an empirical definition of the word "modest"

[Lord Zentei]

All of the arguments are from the lessor canon and as such they are less realivant are they not?

The cruxt of the argument boils down to the average size of galixies and how much smaller than this figure the word Modest means. I would think that to be realivant the word "modest" must mean something say less than 80% of the average size. In fact if we were to assume that a meaningfull differance would require at least one standard deviation the the word "Modest" must be slightly smaller than 78% of the average size of the total population of galixies.

Please explain whose ass you pulled these percentages out of. Why 80%? Why 78%? Are you referring to mean or median average?

If "Modest" does not have a significant meaning then why use the word at all? Since the discriptive word "Modest" was used, then it follows that it must be significant and important. Therefore, it is not subject to debate Vs "Lessor canon" is it?

The ICS has been shown to have other errors of fact as shown by "G" canon and is sertainly not more significant than the other "G" canon refferances. Since the figure of 120,000LY from the ICS can not possably be correct, then it must be discounted! Using any refferance from the lessor canon would automaticaly impune your argument. Therefore, the Galixy must be smaller than average size, because that is the "G" canon requirment.

There are galaxies that are an order of magnitude larger than ours. Based on this, our galaxy is "modest" by comparison. This post of yours is nothing but sophistic horse shit.

[Noble Ire]

All of the arguments are from the lessor canon and as such they are less realivant are they not?

Any official source, provided it is not explictily overruled by a higher source, is canon in the SW universe. You have zero basis in discounting them.

The cruxt of the argument boils down to the average size of galixies and how much smaller than this figure the word Modest means. I would think that to be realivant the word "modest" must mean something say less than 80% of the average size. In fact if we were to assume that a meaningfull differance would require at least one standard deviation the the word "Modest" must be slightly smaller than 78% of the average size of the total population of galixies.

Why are you still harping on "modest"? Where are you even getting that the SW galaxy has to be of a "modest" comparitive size?

If "Modest" does not have a significant meaning then why use the word at all? Since the discriptive word "Modest" was used, then it follows that it must be significant and important. Therefore, it is not subject to debate Vs "Lessor canon" is it?

Again, we've pretty much gotten past the "modest" thing. Wherever it's used, its a general term, hardly something that can countermand other existing sources.

The ICS has been shown to have other errors of fact as shown by "G" canon and is sertainly not more significant than the other "G" canon refferances.

Name these errors.

Since the figure of 120,000LY from the ICS can not possably be correct, then it must be discounted!

Again, why is it not possible? Give evidence.

Using any refferance from the lessor canon would automaticaly impune your argument.

See my first segment. There is no explict contradiction, thus EU applies perfectly well.

Therefore, the Galixy must be smaller than average size, because that is the "G" canon requirment.

Refuted above.

[Morilore]

The cruxt of the argument boils down to the average size of galixies and how much smaller than this figure the word Modest means. I would think that to be realivant the word "modest" must mean something say less than 80% of the average size.

Justify this assertion. While you're at it, determine the average size of galaxies in the universe so can justify your argument that the GFFA is smaller than 120k light-years. And site your source for that.

[Lord Zentei]

The cruxt of the argument boils down to the average size of galixies and how much smaller than this figure the word Modest means. I would think that to be realivant the word "modest" must mean something say less than 80% of the average size.

Justify this assertion. While you're at it, determine the average size of galaxies in the universe so can justify your argument that the GFFA is smaller than 120k light-years. And site your source for that.

Frankly it is meaningless to assert that modest = below average. It could mean any number of things: if you go by the modal, the galaxy would be a dwarf galaxy. If you go by the median, the galaxy could have hundreds of billions of stars.