Reconsidering firepower for the neu-Canon

[Batman]

Given I've been doing this for more than 12 years I assumed that everybody inclined to believe so already did anyway.

[Ralin]

I fail to see what me having studied theology (which given I've apparently studied pretty much everything if the comics are to be believed might very well be correct)

You realize when you say things like this, it makes everyone who reads your posts think you are either insane, or as stupid as a tree-stump, right?

I mostly just find it really annoying and mildly creepy. The stupid part comes from the out of character things he says.

[Purple]

I find it fun. This forum would not be the same without him.

[Havok]

I find it fun. This forum would not be the same without him.

Agreed.

It is fun, and there have been some funny threads because of it and him. Plus, he's never been a sniveling bitch about people giving him shit over it. And really, his persona could be more real than most people on here for all we know.

He just doesn't know which belt to wear. Always phone dial, right Bat-Man?

[Batman]

People giving me shit over it is half the fun.
And I don't see why which belt I wear matters. All of them are massively bigger on the inside anyway.

[Purple]

Here is a question. What is the largest item we ever see Batman hide on his person?

[Borgholio]

Here is a question. What is the largest item we ever see Batman hide on his person?

A full-size can of Bat-lubricant (WD-40) in the 60's TV show. Thing is the size of a large can of beer and he manages to hide it in a pocket the size of a standard men's wallet.

[Batman]

That being said maybe it's time to get back on topic.

[WATCH-MAN]

[...] TPM, Darth Maul. Coruscant near the galactic core to tatooine in the outer rim. ~30k ly in less than 24 hours. 48 at the most.

From which canon source are the 30k ly coming?

Do we still know, how big the Star Wars galaxy is?

[Alyrium Denryle]

[...] TPM, Darth Maul. Coruscant near the galactic core to tatooine in the outer rim. ~30k ly in less than 24 hours. 48 at the most.

From which canon source are the 30k ly coming?

Do we still know, how big the Star Wars galaxy is?

It is an estimate. Tatooine is in the galactic outer rim, Coruscant nearer the core. There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to (TESB, they are WAY outside the galaxy at the end of the film, presumably on the edge of one of the satellite galaxies). The two satellites mean it is not a dwarf galaxy.

Looking at its morphology directly, I cannot tell if it is an Sa or SBa galaxy,

Nothing new canon on the exact size, but I highly doubt that it is tiny. I generally assume it is about as large as the Milky Way. But you know what, lets have some fun!

And by fun, I mean re-watching Attack of the Clones. *Shiver* I must hate myself.

If we watch AoTC and assume that each of the companions we see is a dwarf spiral of about 16 kly across, then we end up with a size range for the star wars galaxy of somewhere between 60 and 80 kly across. However, while they are pretty obviously spirals, they may not be properly dwarf spirals. So the galaxy proper could be considerably bigger.

old official size was 120 thousand light years across. Something tells me that Disney will not be changing that.

[Patroklos]

Do we still know, how big the Star Wars galaxy is?

It is an estimate. Tatooine is in the galactic outer rim, Coruscant nearer the core. There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to (TESB, they are WAY outside the galaxy at the end of the film, presumably on the edge of one of the satellite galaxies). The two satellites mean it is not a dwarf galaxy.[/quote]

How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?

[WATCH-MAN]

Tatooine is in the galactic outer rim,

From which still valid canon source is this?

Does it say "galactic outer rim" or only "outer rim", which can also mean the "outer rim" of the Republic respectively the Empire?

Coruscant nearer the core.

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

Does it say "galactic core" or only "core", which can also mean the core of the Republic respectively the Empire?

There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

Where are these two satellite dwarf galaxies established by a still valid canon source?

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

Where was stated that these satellite dwarf galaxies are commonly transited to?

(TESB, they are WAY outside the galaxy at the end of the film, presumably on the edge of one of the satellite galaxies).

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

Where was stated that in TESB they were way outside the galaxy at the end of the film?

What we saw didn't look like a galaxy to me. Whatever it was, its rotation seemed to me far to fast for a galaxy. It could have been a developing star system ot a nebula or something else.

And as Patroklos objected already: "How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?"

The two satellites mean it is not a dwarf galaxy.

Can you elaborate this conclusion?

Is it impossible for two or three dwarf galaxies to gyrate around each other?

Is it impossible for a big dwarf galaxy to have two small dwarf galaxies circling it?

[...] but I highly doubt that it is tiny.

What is your reason to doubt it?

I generally assume it is about as large as the Milky Way.

What is your reason to assume it?

Is the size of the Milky Way the average size of galaxies or spiral-galaxies?

If we watch AoTC and assume that each of the companions we see is a dwarf spiral of about 16 kly across, [...]

Is it confirmed by a still valid canon source that the galaxies in question are dwarf spiral galaxies?

Is the average size of a dwarf spiral galaxies16 kly across?

[...] then we end up with a size range for the star wars galaxy of somewhere between 60 and 80 kly across.

I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion.

Does a still valid canon source give a relation in size of these galaxies?

However, while they are pretty obviously spirals, [...]

Which still valid canon source let you come to the assessment that "they are pretty obviously spirals"?

they may not be properly dwarf spirals.

Why?

So the galaxy proper could be considerably bigger.

Could it be considerably smaller?

old official size was 120 thousand light years across.

Is a still valid canon source confirming this?

Something tells me that Disney will not be changing that.

If there is no valid canon source confirming this, then there is nothing Disney can change.

Disney only could establish a value.

Until then the size of the galaxy is not known.

[Eternal_Freedom]

There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

Where are these two satellite dwarf galaxies established by a still valid canon source?

The gods-damned map in the Jedi Archives. It's right there on screen damnit.

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

THe apparent size is enough to conclude they are dwarf satellites. Average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years (Milky-Way to Andromeda as an example). Even massive galaxies would not look that large from millions of light-years away.

And as Patroklos objected already: "How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?"

Even if they were staring at one of the dwarf satellites at the end of TESB, they would have to be a long way out of the galactic disc to see it that clearly, or with that large an apparent size. For example, go look at pictures of the Magellanic clouds, they're tens of thousands of light years away and they only appear as small-ish smudges in the sky (even from orbit) so they woudl have to be close to the dwarf satellite to see it appearing that big, which means they're a fucking long way out of the main galaxy.

The two satellites mean it is not a dwarf galaxy.

Can you elaborate this conclusion?

Is it impossible for two or three dwarf galaxies to gyrate around each other?

Is it impossible for a big dwarf galaxy to have two small dwarf galaxies circling it?

A "big dwarf galaxy" is a contradiction in terms...as best I can recall dwarf galaxies have only been observed orbiting larger galaxies, like the aforementioned Magellanic clouds (and others) orbiting the Milky Way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?

Because its proportions are not correct for a dwarf galaxy for one. But even if we are looking at one of the dwarfs, they would have to be along way outside the galactic disk to be seen that clearly.

From which still valid canon source is this?

Does it say "galactic outer rim" or only "outer rim", which can also mean the "outer rim" of the Republic respectively the Empire?

It is a galaxy-spanning republic. When they say things like Outer-Rim, or Core, I generally assume they mean exactly that.

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

They are right the fuck on screen in Attack of the Clones, exactly 34 minutes and 14 seconds in. You moron.

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

Obi Wan points to one and calls it the Rishi Maze, which he uses as a cartographic reference point to indicate that Kamino was somewhat "south" of it, which I can only take to mean from context that he meant "Down on the Y Axis". It is either a dwarf spiral galaxy, or a normal spiral galaxy that is somewhat on the small side, which only makes the Star Wars Galaxy proper, even bigger.

Where was stated that these satellite dwarf galaxies are commonly transited to?

Watch the fucking scene where we see them. It is close enough to the galaxy proper that there are stars with planets (Kamino, in particular) in the intervening space. Kamino is located 12 parsecs outside the Rishi Maze's (the dwarf galaxy) disk (Reference: Star Wars in 100 Scenes, which was published in August, and thus canon). They transit to it.

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

The Empire Strikes Back. Ending scene. The only way that scene works at all is if they are near the edge of one of the companion galaxies (with the second occluded by the primary galaxy) looking in. They are WAY the fuck outside the galaxy. This was also gone into in the still very much canon commentary material in the AoTC DVDs

Where was stated that in TESB they were way outside the galaxy at the end of the film?

This scene, you fucking retard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWP_T-BL_Xk

What we saw didn't look like a galaxy to me. Whatever it was, its rotation seemed to me far to fast for a galaxy. It could have been a developing star system ot a nebula or something else.

1) Neither nubulae nor developing star systems look like that. Go ask the local astrophysicists. We have several.
2) What is a bigger mistake? Faster rotation than you would expect given 1980s visual effects, or making something that is obviously a galaxy in all other aspects of its visual appearance NOT a galaxy?
3) It is outright stated in the Attack of the Clones DVD commentary (because it and its companion galaxies came up)

Is it impossible for two or three dwarf galaxies to gyrate around each other?

No, but generally not so close that there are stars in the intervenine space.

Is it impossible for a big dwarf galaxy to have two small dwarf galaxies circling it?

Dwarf galaxies are defined as galaxies around 16 light years across. Some smaller, none are bigger.

What is your reason to doubt it?

Because making the galaxy two orders of magnitude smaller to drop it into dwarf galaxy territory makes no fucking sense for disney to do, and it is a pretty safe assumption that they will keep the size as-is.

Is the size of the Milky Way the average size of galaxies or spiral-galaxies?

Well, Andromeda is 220 kya, Triangulum is 60 kya, those are the only ones close and non-occluded enough to get a good estimate of their actual size. Angular sizes are known better, but for that you have to know the distance and the margin for error on those is too large. Around 100-150 kya is about as close to an average as I can find. Though the range extends up into the 500 kya range

On the other hand, when people (like george lucas) think of "galaxy" they generally think of them as being roughly comparable to ours.

Is it confirmed by a still valid canon source that the galaxies in question are dwarf spiral galaxies?

By fucking looking at them, yes. They have a bulge in the center, which means they are not irregular or elliptical. That makes them some sort of spiral. They are extremely small relative to the main galaxy, so either they are dwarfs, or they are non-dwarfs, and the Star Wars Galaxy proper is extremely large.

I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion.

Does a still valid canon source give a relation in size of these galaxies?

No, moron. I fucking measured, with some wiggle room to account for 2d-3d conversion issues.

Which still valid canon source let you come to the assessment that "they are pretty obviously spirals"?

Because THEY LOOK LIKE SPIRAL GALAXIES. What you are asking is like asking "What canon source specifies that the apple we see is an apple and not a fish?"

Why?

Because they might be bigger.

Could it be considerably smaller?

No. Because if the dwarf galaxies I used to scale it are bigger than I think they are, the main galaxy must become large. because Math.

[WATCH-MAN]

There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

Where are these two satellite dwarf galaxies established by a still valid canon source?

The gods-damned map in the Jedi Archives. It's right there on screen [...].

It does not make sense to answer a question with something I considered already in the sentence after my question.

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

The apparent size is enough to conclude they are dwarf satellites.

What is the apparent size of the galaxies?

What is the apparent distance of these galaxies?

Average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years (Milky-Way to Andromeda as an example).

Can you provide any sources for your claim that average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years? One example is not enough to make claims about the average.

What are "major galaxies"?

Even massive galaxies would not look that large from millions of light-years away.

Can you elaborate this claim. Can you show that the perspective of that map supports this claim? I still don't see why I have to assume that these galaxies are supposed to be small galaxies in the near vicinity and not really big galaxies far far away.

And as Patroklos objected already: "How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?"

Even if they were staring at one of the dwarf satellites at the end of TESB, they would have to be a long way out of the galactic disc to see it that clearly, or with that large an apparent size. For example, go look at pictures of the Magellanic clouds, they're tens of thousands of light years away and they only appear as small-ish smudges in the sky (even from orbit) so they woudl have to be close to the dwarf satellite to see it appearing that big, which means they're a fucking long way out of the main galaxy.

The apparent size depends again on the true size and distance of these galaxies. As you haven't shown how far away and how big these galaxies are - if the in TESB seen object is a galaxy at all - your claim does not seem conclusive.

And I have noticed that you have ignored the question if the in TESB seen object can be a galaxy at all:

What we saw didn't look like a galaxy to me. Whatever it was, its rotation seemed to me far to fast for a galaxy. It could have been a developing star system ot a nebula or something else.

The two satellites mean it is not a dwarf galaxy.

Can you elaborate this conclusion?

Is it impossible for two or three dwarf galaxies to gyrate around each other?

Is it impossible for a big dwarf galaxy to have two small dwarf galaxies circling it?

A "big dwarf galaxy" is a contradiction in terms...

Is it?

According to Wikipedia there are dwarf galaxies as large as the Large Magellanic Cloud (14,000 ly) and dwarf galaxies that are only 100 parsecs across (326.16 ly). I would call the one a big dwarf galaxy and the other a small dwarf galaxy.

...as best I can recall dwarf galaxies have only been observed orbiting larger galaxies, like the aforementioned Magellanic clouds (and others) orbiting the Milky Way.

It seems you are not sure.

According to Wikipedia, there are dwarf spiral galaxies too. Which evidence from still valid canon do we have that the Star Wars galaxy is not a dwarf spiral galaxy orbiting two huge galaxies, the galaxies we have seen in the background of the Star Wars galaxy in the map in the jed archive?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What is the apparent size of the galaxies?

Two of them are Way The Fuck smaller than other one. So either they are dwarf galaxies and the star wars galaxy is a fairly standard spiral, or they are standard spiral galaxies and the star wars galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years across.

What is the apparent distance of these galaxies?

Short. Scaleable by estimating the size of the galaxies. Somewhere in the tens of thousands of light years. Short enough that there are stars hanging out between the disks.

Can you provide any sources for your claim that average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years?

Go read a fucking astronomy textbook.

Alternatively. The average distance between galaxies is 1 megaparsec.

http://www.mariecurie.org/annals/volume1/diaferio.pdf

Can you elaborate this claim. Can you show that the perspective of that map supports this claim? I still don't see why I have to assume that these galaxies are supposed to be small galaxies in the near vicinity and not really big galaxies far far away.

You do this by ignoring my god dam post. Current canon source material specifies it. They are companion dwarf galaxies. Kamino exists BETWEEN the disks.

And I have noticed that you have ignored the question if the in TESB seen object can be a galaxy at all:

I didnt. You dishonest dipshit. It is, in fact, specified in multiple canon sources including the AoTC commentary.

Which evidence from still valid canon do we have that the Star Wars galaxy is not a dwarf spiral galaxy orbiting two huge galaxies, the galaxies we have seen in the background of the Star Wars galaxy in the map in the jed archive?

I have already given that reference. You wall of ignorance.

[Patroklos]

You know, there is nothing that says that archive screen was even to scale. For all we know those are other stellar objects they were looking at before minimized in the background or shifted out of the way via touch screen. You are making a lot of assumptions, when what you should be saying (all you can accurately say) is you have a theory that is plausible.

Also if that screen is to scale they could be equally large galaxies at different distances in a binary or other multiple system. That is a thing.

And yes, galaxies that are not in any system at all (either binary or satellite) do collide and or pass each other comingling and/or capturing stars and material from each other all the time. Stars can get stranded between the two as they are pulling away as well. that's irrelevant as whether there is a dwarf satellite or just one in close proximity presumably you could still travel to it, but that does mean there can be a star outside the galaxy but close enough that can be traveled to even if there isn't a dwarf galaxy close enough to be traveled to itself.

[WATCH-MAN]

How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?

Because its proportions are not correct for a dwarf galaxy for one.

Why?

What are the proportion of dwarf galaxies?

But even if we are looking at one of the dwarfs, they would have to be along way outside the galactic disk to be seen that clearly.

Can you provide evidence for that claim?

How clearly could a galaxy outside of the milky way be seen from a point between two star systems, several light years away from the next light source?

From which still valid canon source is this?

Does it say "galactic outer rim" or only "outer rim", which can also mean the "outer rim" of the Republic respectively the Empire?

It is a galaxy-spanning republic.

From which still valid canon source is this?

Where was stated that the Republic or the Empire is as big as the whole galaxy?

When they say things like Outer-Rim, or Core, I generally assume they mean exactly that.

You assume?

That means you do not know it and have no evidence.

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

They are right the fuck on screen in Attack of the Clones, exactly 34 minutes and 14 seconds in.

It does not demonstrate intelligence to to answer one of my questions with something I considered already in the sentence after my question without addressing what I contemplated already.

You moron.

I think it is telling that I only have to ask a few questions and you are allready getting frustrated and losing your composure.

Contrary to you, I didn't make any claims, which could be wrong.

Especially I'm not pretending to know much about astronomy. That's why I am no making any astronomical claims.

I'm only asking questions.

It's your responsibily to provide evidence for your claims.

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

Obi Wan points to one and calls it the Rishi Maze, [...]

Did he?

I couldn't see, to what exactly he pointed. I have problems to tell with the perspective and the image of a three dimensional space on a two dimensional screen.

The thing is, you may be right. I do not know as all I have is your claim. Can you provide evidence that he pointed to one of the galaxies in the background and not only to a point in the galaxy in the foreground (staying for the purpose of this argument with your claim that the two smaller appearing galaxies are in the background).

(Annotation: I just read on Wookipedia that says "According to the map in The New Essential Chronology, Kamino is located exactly where Obi-Wan Kenobi said that it was. In the film however, he points toward the Unknown Regions, where no known systems are located." This puts into question if Obi Wan pointed indeed to one of the galaxies.)

... which he uses as a cartographic reference point to indicate that Kamino was somewhat "south" of it, which I can only take to mean from context that he meant "Down on the Y Axis".

Assuming he indeed pointed to one of the galaxies in the background and not only to a point inside the galaxy in the foreground and that he meant "Down on the Y Axis".

With other words: You assume and do not know and have no evidence for your claim.

Furthermore, even if he indeed pointed to one of the galaxies in the background, saying that Kamino is south of this galaxy means that it has to be outside of the galaxy he pointed to. In that case, Kamino has to be inside the galaxy in the foreground (or somewhere in the middle between both galaxies) but not in the galaxy Obi Wan pointed to.

It is either a dwarf spiral galaxy, or a normal spiral galaxy that is somewhat on the small side, ...

Please show that it is a spiral galaxy at all.



I'm not able to see enough to conclude that the galaxies that appear to be smaller on this screen are spiral galaxies.

To be honest, I'm not able to see enough to conclude that the galaxies that appear to be smaller on this screen are big galaxies in the background, not so big galaxies behind the bigger galaxy in the foreground or very small galaxies in the foreground.

Again: You may be right. I can not know as you do not provide evidence for your claims.

...which only makes the Star Wars Galaxy proper, even bigger.

Assuming all you are assuming.

Where was stated that these satellite dwarf galaxies are commonly transited to?

Watch the fucking scene where we see them. It is close enough to the galaxy proper that there are stars with planets (Kamino, in particular) in the intervening space. Kamino is located 12 parsecs outside the Rishi Maze's (the dwarf galaxy) disk (Reference: Star Wars in 100 Scenes, which was published in August, and thus canon). They transit to it.

Assuming that Obi Wan pointed to the other galaxy and not to a point inside the bigger seeming galaxy or somewhere else.

A book alone is not an adequate reference. Please provide a quote from this book which confrms your claim.

Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?

The Empire Strikes Back. Ending scene. The only way that scene works at all is if they are near the edge of one of the companion galaxies (with the second occluded by the primary galaxy) looking in. They are WAY the fuck outside the galaxy. This was also gone into in the still very much canon commentary material in the AoTC DVDs

More claims but no evidence.

Why is it the only way that scene works at all if they are near the edge of one of the companion galaxies?

According to Wookipedia, "The Episode II DVD-ROM Exclusive Content states that "the cluster known as the Rishi Maze may be the bright object that Luke and Leia stare at at the end of The Empire Strikes Back." However, Leland Chee confirmed on the StarWars.com Message Boards that the object seen in Episode V is the Star Wars galaxy ..." This puts into question that there is only one way how the scene works at all. And what Leland Chee said is not canon any more, is it?

Where was stated that in TESB they were way outside the galaxy at the end of the film?

This scene, you fucking retard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWP_T-BL_Xk

I can not conclude from that scene that they are outside the galaxy.

Again: According to Wookipedia, "The Episode II DVD-ROM Exclusive Content states that "the cluster known as the Rishi Maze may be the bright object that Luke and Leia stare at at the end of The Empire Strikes Back." However, Leland Chee confirmed on the StarWars.com Message Boards that the object seen in Episode V is the Star Wars galaxy ..." This puts into question that there is only one way how the scene works at all. And what Leland Chee said is not canon any more, is it? Even the "Episode II DVD-ROM Exclusive Content" is not canon any more, is it?

What we saw didn't look like a galaxy to me. Whatever it was, its rotation seemed to me far to fast for a galaxy. It could have been a developing star system ot a nebula or something else.

1) Neither nubulae nor developing star systems look like that. Go ask the local astrophysicists. We have several.

Your claim. It is your responsibility to provide evidence.

According to a page of Professor Marcia Rieke and Professor George Rieke it looks like this



when when a young star is still surrounded by the dense disk of both gas and dust.

2) What is a bigger mistake? Faster rotation than you would expect given 1980s visual effects, or making something that is obviously a galaxy in all other aspects of its visual appearance NOT a galaxy?

Do you want to claim that 1980s visual effects were not able to create a slower rotating object? I have problems buying that. I'm convinced that someone in the special effect departement decided to let it rotate as fast as it rotates. But maybe you can provide evidence that they indeed were not able to let it rotate slower.

3) It is outright stated in the Attack of the Clones DVD commentary (because it and its companion galaxies came up)

The fact that it was outright stated in the Attack of the Clones DVD commentary puts into question that it is indeed as clear as you claim. Were it as clear, there wouldn't have been a need to make such statement.

And the "Attack of the Clones DVD commentary" is not valid canon any more, is it?

Is it impossible for two or three dwarf galaxies to gyrate around each other?

No, but generally not so close that there are stars in the intervenine space.

Are there stars in the intervenine space?

Is it impossible for a big dwarf galaxy to have two small dwarf galaxies circling it?

Dwarf galaxies are defined as galaxies around 16 light years across. Some smaller, none are bigger.

And?

What follows from that?

What is your reason to doubt it?

Because making the galaxy two orders of magnitude smaller to drop it into dwarf galaxy territory makes no fucking sense for disney to do, and it is a pretty safe assumption that they will keep the size as-is.

Disney hasn't to do anything. As long as Disney does not gives any values for the galaxy, you have only what remains valid canon to provide evidence that it is as big as you are claiming.

Is the size of the Milky Way the average size of galaxies or spiral-galaxies?

Well, Andromeda is 220 kya, Triangulum is 60 kya, those are the only ones close and non-occluded enough to get a good estimate of their actual size. Angular sizes are known better, but for that you have to know the distance and the margin for error on those is too large. Around 100-150 kya is about as close to an average as I can find. Though the range extends up into the 500 kya range

You have given two examples. That's not enough to make any claims about what is average.
The rest of what you have written is only a claim without any evidence. Can you give any sources?

According to Wikipedia there are dwarf spiral galaxiestoo. These can have diameters less than 5 kpc.

On the other hand, when people (like george lucas) think of "galaxy" they generally think of them as being roughly comparable to ours.

Do they?

I mean, George Lucas thought it possible for the Millenium Falcon to fly from the Hoth system to the Bespin system without its hyperdrive. To me it does not seem as if George Lucas really thinks about how big galaxies can be.

But maybe you can provide evidence for your claim.

Is it confirmed by a still valid canon source that the galaxies in question are dwarf spiral galaxies?

By fucking looking at them, yes. They have a bulge in the center, which means they are not irregular or elliptical. That makes them some sort of spiral. They are extremely small relative to the main galaxy, so either they are dwarfs, or they are non-dwarfs, and the Star Wars Galaxy proper is extremely large.

Do only spiral galaxies have a bulge in the center?

According to Wikipedia "there are two physical types of ellipticals; the "boxy" giant ellipticals, whose shapes result from random motion which is greater in some directions than in others (anisotropic random motion), and the "disky" normal and low luminosity ellipticals, which have nearly isotropic random velocities but are flattened due to rotation."

And according to Wikipedia "the term [bulge] almost exclusively refers to the central group of stars found in most spiral galaxies (see Galactic spheroid). Bulges were historically thought to be elliptical galaxies that happen to have a disk of stars around them, but high resolution images using the Hubble Space Telescope have revealed that many bulges have properties that are more like spiral galaxies. It is now thought that there are at least two types of bulges, bulges that are like ellipticals and bulges that are like spiral galaxies." That means that not all spiral galaxies do have bulges and that elliptical galaxies can have bulges too.

I do not understand how you can come to this conclusion.

Does a still valid canon source give a relation in size of these galaxies?

No, moron. I fucking measured, with some wiggle room to account for 2d-3d conversion issues.

Please make your meassuring reproducible.

Which still valid canon source let you come to the assessment that "they are pretty obviously spirals"?

Because THEY LOOK LIKE SPIRAL GALAXIES. What you are asking is like asking "What canon source specifies that the apple we see is an apple and not a fish?"

Your argument above was, that they are spiral galaxies because they have a bulge in the center.

According to Wikipedia, that is not evidence that it is a spiral galaxy.

Why?

Because they might be bigger.

You have lost me.

Could it be considerably smaller?

No. Because if the dwarf galaxies I used to scale it are bigger than I think they are, the main galaxy must become large. because Math.

And if they are smaller than you thought?

Or if they are farther away than you thought?

[Eternal_Freedom]

It does not make sense to answer a question with something I considered already in the sentence after my question.

Where did you consider it? You ask what "still valid canon source" shows two companion dwarf galaxies...Alyrium and I said it, the map seen in the Archives. Unless I missed an important memo, AOTC is still canon.

(Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)

The apparent size is enough to conclude they are dwarf satellites.

What is the apparent size of the galaxies?

What is the apparent distance of these galaxies?

Given there relative sizes, they cannot be big galaxies far away. If they were, they wouldn't look that big. Again, I'l use Andromeda as a reference, a spiral galaxy bigger than the Milky WAy at a distance of several million light years...you need a telescope to see it even as a faint elliptical smudge. You need a really good telescope to get a decent image of it. I would know, I took a lot of pictures of Andromeda during my Astronomy degree.

Average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years (Milky-Way to Andromeda as an example).

Can you provide any sources for your claim that average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years? One example is not enough to make claims about the average.

What are "major galaxies"?

Alyrium gave you a link, so I'll address the last bit. Galaxies are objects of roughly similar size to the Milky Way. We use it as a baseline the same way we use the Sun as a baseline for stars. A "major" galaxy (which is a turn-of-phrase I used, it is not AFAIK an actual term) is one like ours, tens of thousands of light-years across, hundred million plus stars, and orbiting a common centre of mass of a group or cluster, as opposed to satellite galaxies which orbit a larger body.

Even massive galaxies would not look that large from millions of light-years away.

Can you elaborate this claim. Can you show that the perspective of that map supports this claim? I still don't see why I have to assume that these galaxies are supposed to be small galaxies in the near vicinity and not really big galaxies far far away.

As I explained above, for those two objects to be anything other than satellite galaxies (and hence dwarves, given the apparent size) they would have to be either extremely close (by intergalactic standards) or monstrously large. The example I gave above of Andromeda, bigger than the Milky Way, three million-odd LYs distant, and is relatively tiny in our sky is a good illustration.

And if the two objects were similarly-sized galaxies that were very close, they would have to be very close, tens or hundreds of thousands of light-years at most, simply to look that big. Plus I suspect that having two other similarly-massed galaxies in such proximity would really mess up the nice pretty spiral structure due to the gravitational pull.

And as Patroklos objected already: "How do we know they are not staring at one of the dwarf galaxies in TESB?"

Even if they were staring at one of the dwarf satellites at the end of TESB, they would have to be a long way out of the galactic disc to see it that clearly, or with that large an apparent size. For example, go look at pictures of the Magellanic clouds, they're tens of thousands of light years away and they only appear as small-ish smudges in the sky (even from orbit) so they woudl have to be close to the dwarf satellite to see it appearing that big, which means they're a fucking long way out of the main galaxy.

The apparent size depends again on the true size and distance of these galaxies. As you haven't shown how far away and how big these galaxies are - if the in TESB seen object is a galaxy at all - your claim does not seem conclusive.

And I have noticed that you have ignored the question if the in TESB seen object can be a galaxy at all:

What we saw didn't look like a galaxy to me. Whatever it was, its rotation seemed to me far to fast for a galaxy. It could have been a developing star system ot a nebula or something else.

Have you ever seen a galaxy from outside it? No? Then shut up with this "it doesn't look like a galaxy to me" crap. As for your wall of ignorance on the true size and apparent size, well, if they are dwarf satellite galaxies (which all evidence and formerly-canon sources state) then they must be a long way out of the SW galaxy's disc to see it with that apparent size. And if it is another similarly-sized galaxy, then it would have to be absurdly close to the SW galaxy to be that large and clearly visible (with the aforementioned gravitational pull disrupting the spiral structure)...or the Rebel fleet is a long way outside the SW galaxy.

...as best I can recall dwarf galaxies have only been observed orbiting larger galaxies, like the aforementioned Magellanic clouds (and others) orbiting the Milky Way.

It seems you are not sure.

According to Wikipedia, there are dwarf spiral galaxies too. Which evidence from still valid canon do we have that the Star Wars galaxy is not a dwarf spiral galaxy orbiting two huge galaxies, the galaxies we have seen in the background of the Star Wars galaxy in the map in the jed archive?

Ok, fine. We have formerly-canon sources stating that the SW galaxy is a large spiral galaxy of a similar size to the Milky Way, and we have formerly-canon sources supported by on-screen evidence saying it has at least two dwarf satellite galaxies. Now, fine, the sources stating the size and satellites is no longer canon...but do you have any valid canon sources to say they aren't dwarf satellites? Beyond "I don't think it looked like a galaxy" and "that map might not be to scale." Whilst we have no canon source explicitly stating the satellite's existence, we have no source denying it either, therefore I think it is safe to stick with the old canon statements unless they are contradicted in Rebels or Episode VII, which I doubt they will be.

[WATCH-MAN]

What is the apparent size of the galaxies?

Two of them are Way The Fuck smaller than other one.

According to that logic, the moon in this image is bigger than the sun.

So either they are dwarf galaxies and the star wars galaxy is a fairly standard spiral, or they are standard spiral galaxies and the star wars galaxy is hundreds of thousands of light years across.

Or we are looking at a dwarf galaxy with two big galaxies in the bakground.

What is the apparent distance of these galaxies?

Short. Scaleable by estimating the size of the galaxies. Somewhere in the tens of thousands of light years. Short enough that there are stars hanging out between the disks.

According to that logic, the moon in the image above is only two times its own diameter afar from the sun.

Can you provide any sources for your claim that average separation of major galaxies is at least three million light years?

Go read a fucking astronomy textbook.

Your claim - your responsibilty to provide evidence.

Alternatively. The average distance between galaxies is 1 megaparsec.

http://www.mariecurie.org/annals/volume1/diaferio.pdf

That's a source.

According to this source Galaxies roughly have a size 20 kiloparsec, namely 65,000 light-years and the average distance between galaxies is 1 megaparsec (Mpc), 50 times the size of a galaxy.

Both values are different from thos you have given.

It seems you have used google to find the source you have provied. I'm providing the page "Physics Stack Exchange". There they are saying:

• • • • The simple answer is that the average galaxy spacing is around a few megaparsecs, while the biggest galaxies are around 0.1 megaparsecs in size. So the average spacing is somewhere in the range of 10 - 100 times the size of the biggest galaxies. The peas I had for lunch today were (at a guess - I didn't measure them!) 5mm in diameter so the interpea spacing would be 5 - 50cm, or between 8,000 and 8 per cubic metre.
        
        But this is a very misleading statistic. Galaxies are not distributed uniformly, but instead are grouped into clusters, which are themselves grouped into superclusters. Also galaxies vary enormously in size, with dwarf galaxies around a thousand times smaller than the biggest galaxies.

For this reason, your source may give us an average. But this doesn't say anything about the Star Wars galaxy.

Can you elaborate this claim. Can you show that the perspective of that map supports this claim? I still don't see why I have to assume that these galaxies are supposed to be small galaxies in the near vicinity and not really big galaxies far far away.

You do this by ignoring my god dam post.

Which post have I ignored?

Current canon source material specifies it.

Which still valid canon source is speffying it. Please do not only mention a book but provide a quote from it.

(I do not have "Star Wars in 100 Scenes" and do not know what it says. According to Wookipedia "Most Star Wars material released after April 25, 2014 — with some exceptions — is composed in collaboration with the Lucasfilm Story Group, making it part of the "new canon."" Star Wars in 100 Scenes was released on August 18, 2014. But was it composed in collaboration with the Lucasfilm Story Group? It is not listed in the Bibliography of the "Lucasfilm Story Group" entry of Wookipedia.

Again according to Wookipedia, the book provides information, both in- and out-of-universe, about major scenes from the Star Wars Saga. Are information out-of-universe canon? Are, if this book contains any information about this subject at all, these out-of-universe information?

Insofar please provide evidence that the book "Star Wars in 100 Scenes" is valid canon.)

They are companion dwarf galaxies. Kamino exists BETWEEN the disks.

You have only refered to sources that are not considered canon anymore.

You have not shown that the map in the jedi archives is showing two dwarf galaxies in the vicinity of the third galaxy.

And I have noticed that you have ignored the question if the in TESB seen object can be a galaxy at all:

I didnt. You dishonest dipshit. It is, in fact, specified in multiple canon sources including the AoTC commentary.

You have only refered to sources that are not considered canon anymore - as the AoTC commentary is not regarded valid canon anymore - if I'm not mistaken.

Which evidence from still valid canon do we have that the Star Wars galaxy is not a dwarf spiral galaxy orbiting two huge galaxies, the galaxies we have seen in the background of the Star Wars galaxy in the map in the jed archive?

I have already given that reference. You wall of ignorance.

You have only refered to sources that are not considered canon anymore. The rest was claims and nothing more.

Your only reference that is still considered canon is the map from the jedi archives and the end scene from TESB. But you failed to show that these references are confirming your claims. At least you failed to adress my objections or answer my questions.

[WATCH-MAN]

It does not make sense to answer a question with something I considered already in the sentence after my question.

Where did you consider it? You ask what "still valid canon source" shows two companion dwarf galaxies...Alyrium and I said it, the map seen in the Archives. Unless I missed an important memo, AOTC is still canon.

I wrote:

• • • • There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to

        Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?
        
        Where are these two satellite dwarf galaxies established by a still valid canon source?
        
        (Does the map of the galaxy and its surrounding as seen in the Jedi Archives shows enough details to conclude that we are seeing dwarf galaxies in the near vicinity of the galaxy and not only big galaxies million and million light years away?)
        
        Where was stated that these satellite dwarf galaxies are commonly transited to?

You answered after the second sentece and ignored the third sentence.

• • • • There are at least two satellite dwarf galaxies (from AoTC) that are commonly transited to

        Same question: From which still valid canon source is this?
        
        Where are these two satellite dwarf galaxies established by a still valid canon source?

        The gods-damned map in the Jedi Archives. It's right there on screen [...]

[...]

Ok, fine. We have formerly-canon sources stating that the SW galaxy is a large spiral galaxy of a similar size to the Milky Way, and we have formerly-canon sources supported by on-screen evidence saying it has at least two dwarf satellite galaxies. Now, fine, the sources stating the size and satellites is no longer canon...but do you have any valid canon sources to say they aren't dwarf satellites? Beyond "I don't think it looked like a galaxy" and "that map might not be to scale." Whilst we have no canon source explicitly stating the satellite's existence, we have no source denying it either, therefore I think it is safe to stick with the old canon statements unless they are contradicted in Rebels or Episode VII, which I doubt they will be.

I'm not the one who claims anything.

I do not claim that the Star Wars galaxy is a dwarf spiral galaxy nor am I claiming that it is a normal or huge spiral galaxy.

I merely think that there is no canon anymore to answer this question.

I think that this should be considered before someone claims with levity that the distance between Coruscant and Tatooine is "~30k ly".

It could be possible - not that I am claiming it - that the Star Wars galaxy isn't even 30.000 ly big.

It could be possble - and I'm neither claiming this - that the Star Wars galaxy has a diameter of 200.00 ly and the distance between the core and the rim is 100.000 ly.

All I'm saying is that we do not know without valid canon source.

Regard me as someone, who has never heard of the EU, someone who only knows the six Star Wars films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film. That's all I know. And suddenly there is someone coming and claiming that the Star Wars Galaxy has such or such a size. It seems to me totally normal that I wonder from where this values are coming.

Not knowing the EU but knowing TESB - I would never have guessed that what we are seeing at the end of this movie, is supposed to be a galaxy. I never had the impression that the rebel fleet could be outside its galaxy.

And I haven't given the galaxies I have seen on the map in AotC any relevance. To me they were only galaxies in the background. I never had the impression that Kamino could be in another galaxy or between two galaxies.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ok, fine. We have formerly-canon sources stating that the SW galaxy is a large spiral galaxy of a similar size to the Milky Way, and we have formerly-canon sources supported by on-screen evidence saying it has at least two dwarf satellite galaxies. Now, fine, the sources stating the size and satellites is no longer canon...but do you have any valid canon sources to say they aren't dwarf satellites? Beyond "I don't think it looked like a galaxy" and "that map might not be to scale." Whilst we have no canon source explicitly stating the satellite's existence, we have no source denying it either, therefore I think it is safe to stick with the old canon statements unless they are contradicted in Rebels or Episode VII, which I doubt they will be.

I'm not the one who claims anything.

I do not claim that the Star Wars galaxy is a dwarf spiral galaxy nor am I claiming that it is a normal or huge spiral galaxy.

I merely think that there is no canon anymore to answer this question.

I think that this should be considered before someone claims with levity that the distance between Coruscant and Tatooine is "~30k ly".

It could be possible - not that I am claiming it - that the Star Wars galaxy isn't even 30.000 ly big.

It could be possble - and I'm neither claiming this - that the Star Wars galaxy has a diameter of 200.00 ly and the distance between the core and the rim is 100.000 ly.

All I'm saying is that we do not know without valid canon source.

Regard me as someone, who has never heard of the EU, someone who only knows the six Star Wars films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film. That's all I know. And suddenly there is someone coming and claiming that the Star Wars Galaxy has such or such a size. It seems to me totally normal that I wonder from where this values are coming.

We have an original canon statement giving a size. That is no longer canon but it is not contradicted by anything in the new canon. I see no reason to assume it is no longer true. When we say things are "no longer canon" we are talking about events, characters, ship classes. I see no reason we should throw out previously-stated details of the galaxy itself.

Not knowing the EU but knowing TESB - I would never have guessed that what we are seeing at the end of this movie, is supposed to be a galaxy. I never had the impression that the rebel fleet could be outside its galaxy.

It looks like a galaxy might be depicted based on information available to the filmmakers. You, however, are looking at it from several decades later, during which we launched the Hubble Telescope and built a bunch of other telescopes and in general learned a lot more about galaxies. Add to this fact that there really isn't anything else it could be. As Alyrium said earlier, nebulae don't look like that, protoplanetary systems don't look like that.

However, if you want more evidence they left the galaxy, we see a good chunk of the sky from the Rebel fleet's position, and there is no analogue tot he Milky Way as seen from Earth. If they were still inside the SW galaxy, we would expect to see some visual sign of this in the form of a Milky-Way-type spread of visible gas and dust in a band across half the sky (or more). We see none, ergo they are not in the galaxy.

And I haven't given the galaxies I have seen on the map in AotC any relevance. To me they were only galaxies in the background. I never had the impression that Kamino could be in another galaxy or between two galaxies.

You clearly know nothing of astronomy then. As I have repeatedly said (and you have distinctly failed to respond to), those two objects cannot be merely "galaxies in the background" because they appear too damn big. The only times we see galaxies that close together are when they are either satellites orbiting a larger galaxy, or two similarly-sized galaxies orbiting each other. Either way, they are associated with each other and are close together (relatively speaking).

If you've never had the impression that Kamino wasn't in the main SW galaxy, go back and watch the scene again. Obi-Wan points to the screen, just below one of the satellite objects and says "it should be here, twelve parsecs outside the Rizhi Maze." He's clearly not pointing at the main body of the galaxy...and if you are going to suggest that the smaller object he was pointing at in the image actually is the SW galaxy, why would it not be the central object in the image? Why show the larger galaxy at all?

[Patroklos]

Given there relative sizes, they cannot be big galaxies far away. If they were, they wouldn't look that big. Again, I'l use Andromeda as a reference, a spiral galaxy bigger than the Milky WAy at a distance of several million light years...you need a telescope to see it even as a faint elliptical smudge. You need a really good telescope to get a decent image of it. I would know, I took a lot of pictures of Andromeda during my Astronomy degree.

You seem to be under the impression that you are viewing a photograph and the optics of real time viewing apply. We may be, but unless you think the colors we see (uniform bluish) are reality the image is obviously digital in some respect.

And again the average distance is irrelevant as there is nothing that says in this specific instance the SW galaxy doesn't have to match an average.

As for a really good telescope, I am pretty sure in a universe where slave boys build self aware AI robots out of throw away spare parts in the equivalent of bumfuck Sudan even he has a better telescope that the most advanced equipment of our professional astronomers today. And he probably got it out of the bottom of a Space CrackerJack box. Your experience with our technology are meaningless here.

Alyrium gave you a link, so I'll address the last bit. Galaxies are objects of roughly similar size to the Milky Way. We use it as a baseline the same way we use the Sun as a baseline for stars. A "major" galaxy (which is a turn-of-phrase I used, it is not AFAIK an actual term) is one like ours, tens of thousands of light-years across, hundred million plus stars, and orbiting a common centre of mass of a group or cluster, as opposed to satellite galaxies which orbit a larger body.

You keep saying companion and satellite. Even if these are dwarf galaxies you have no evidence that these are in any way linked to the SW galaxy rather than say speeding by at a close approach or about to barrel through it. The best we can say is they are probably not exiting a collision give the lack of deformations but even that, depending on the distances you don't know and its relative velocity which you also don't know, is possible.

As I explained above, for those two objects to be anything other than satellite galaxies (and hence dwarves, given the apparent size) they would have to be either extremely close (by intergalactic standards) or monstrously large. The example I gave above of Andromeda, bigger than the Milky Way, three million-odd LYs distant, and is relatively tiny in our sky is a good illustration

So why are these to be assumed to not be extremely close or monstrously large?

And if the two objects were similarly-sized galaxies that were very close, they would have to be very close, tens or hundreds of thousands of light-years at most, simply to look that big. Plus I suspect that having two other similarly-massed galaxies in such proximity would really mess up the nice pretty spiral structure due to the gravitational pull.

Fair enough. did the LA art department know that? If we can excuse away break neck rotation speed that way we can do that to pretty much anything.

Have you ever seen a galaxy from outside it? No? Then shut up with this "it doesn't look like a galaxy to me" crap. As for your wall of ignorance on the true size and apparent size, well, if they are dwarf satellite galaxies (which all evidence and formerly-canon sources state) then they must be a long way out of the SW galaxy's disc to see it with that apparent size. And if it is another similarly-sized galaxy, then it would have to be absurdly close to the SW galaxy to be that large and clearly visible (with the aforementioned gravitational pull disrupting the spiral structure)...or the Rebel fleet is a long way outside the SW galaxy.

Ummm, yeah. All of us have seen a galaxy from out side it. There are pictures posted all over this board of them. How do we not know what they were looking at was an absurdly small and close dwarf galaxy not pictured in the screen grab because its behind the center galaxy?

Hell, how do you know there are not a million other SW dwarf galaxies outside the FOV of that image or obscured by the ones we see? Why does the TESB scene have to include one of these two?

I like the idea of small dwarf galaxies that our protagonists can visit. It gives us an opportunity to have some interesting story lines regarding them that I am sure will be left up to my imagination as they are squandered by canon writers. The fact that they might be fun or interesting doesn't mean we get to make wild assumptions about them.

[jwl]

Whether or not the galaxies would be too small to see in the background depends entirely on where the camera is and what zoom it has.
Hubble deep field:

[WATCH-MAN]

We have an original canon statement giving a size. That is no longer canon but it is not contradicted by anything in the new canon. I see no reason to assume it is no longer true. When we say things are "no longer canon" we are talking about events, characters, ship classes. I see no reason we should throw out previously-stated details of the galaxy itself.

Then we disagree in this aspekt.

To me - as I have never known your "original canon statement" - it is irrelevant. I do not regard it as valid as long as it is not contradicted by valid canon. I simply do not know it - leaving me with nothing but the the six Star Wars films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film.

That's not a joke. I have seen all Star Wars films. I like all Star Wars films and I can't await the next Star Wars film. Surly, I have heard of the EU. But nothing more. I have not one single Star Wars book in my book-shelf. I do know nothing from the EU.

It looks like a galaxy might be depicted based on information available to the filmmakers. You, however, are looking at it from several decades later, during which we launched the Hubble Telescope and built a bunch of other telescopes and in general learned a lot more about galaxies. Add to this fact that there really isn't anything else it could be. As Alyrium said earlier, nebulae don't look like that, protoplanetary systems don't look like that.

As I have said earlier: I'm not an astronomer. I do not know much about astronomy. And when I saw TESB, to be honest, I really didn't thought much about it. But - call it intuition - I never had the thought that what I saw could be a galaxy. I mean I always knew that planets, stars and galaxies are moving and that they can reach high velocities on their orbits. But I knew too that they need time for a whole orbit. I mean Earth needs a whole year to orbit around the sun. And look at what was seen in TESB. This thing needs less than a day for a whole rotation. Now lets assume that it is a dwarf galaxy with 15.000 ly across. That means it has a 47.000 light year circumfence. An object at the rim of such a galaxy would have to have a velocity of 47.000 light years a day to be able to orbit around its center in a day. As I have said: I haven't put much thought into it. But that this is not possible was so obviously that the thought that this could be a galaxy never crossed my mind. And this has nothing to do with what we know about galaxies now. It's not as if I have seen so many galaxies in movies from the NASA.

However, if you want more evidence they left the galaxy, we see a good chunk of the sky from the Rebel fleet's position, and there is no analogue tot he Milky Way as seen from Earth. If they were still inside the SW galaxy, we would expect to see some visual sign of this in the form of a Milky-Way-type spread of visible gas and dust in a band across half the sky (or more). We see none, ergo they are not in the galaxy.

Or the visuals are not accurate as we have never seen such - even when they were in the galaxy without a doubt.

And I haven't given the galaxies I have seen on the map in AotC any relevance. To me they were only galaxies in the background. I never had the impression that Kamino could be in another galaxy or between two galaxies.

You clearly know nothing of astronomy then.

This I have stated now several times. But this does not mean that I believe all you are saying to me only because you may know more than I do. I still expect that you explain your claims - preferably in a way that I - as a layman - can understand it.

As I have repeatedly said (and you have distinctly failed to respond to), those two objects cannot be merely "galaxies in the background" because they appear too damn big.

That's the thing I can not understand. Let's assume that the Star Wars galaxy is only a dwarf galaxy with a diameter of 15.000 light years and the other two galaxies are galaxies with a diameter of 200.000 light years. How far away have they to be from each other to get an image as was seen in AotC?

If you've never had the impression that Kamino wasn't in the main SW galaxy, go back and watch the scene again.

I have.

Obi-Wan points to the screen, just below one of the satellite objects and says "it should be here, twelve parsecs outside the Rizhi Maze." He's clearly not pointing at the main body of the galaxy...

I can not tell from that scene, to which point on the screen he is pointing.

And as it seems, I'm not the only one with that problem. Wookipedia says "According to the map in The New Essential Chronology, Kamino is located exactly where Obi-Wan Kenobi said that it was. In the film however, he points toward the Unknown Regions, where no known systems are located." This puts into question if Obi Wan pointed indeed to one of the galaxies.

and if you are going to suggest that the smaller object he was pointing at in the image actually is the SW galaxy, why would it not be the central object in the image? Why show the larger galaxy at all?

I'm not suggesting such a thing. I never even thought about this. My impression was that the galaxy in the center of the screen is the Star Wars galaxy, that he pointed to a point inside this galaxy and that there was Kamino.