PDA

View Full Version : star wars Episode 2-bad astronomy stuff



g99
2002-Jul-01, 10:26 PM
this is being nit picky but: Star wars takes place a Long, Long, Long time ago many of the srats we see now are just forming or have not reached very far yet. I know that it probobly does not take place in our galaxy, but they still should not see as many stars as they do.

xriso
2002-Jul-02, 03:03 AM
On 2002-07-01 18:26, g99 wrote:
this is being nit picky but: Star wars takes place a Long, Long, Long time ago many of the srats we see now are just forming or have not reached very far yet. I know that it probobly does not take place in our galaxy, but they still should not see as many stars as they do.

I suppose that depends on how much time "long long ago" is. If it's on the order of billions of years, then it's probably a historical artifact from when the scientific opinion was that of an infinitely old universe.

On the topic of that movie... I recall that Coruscant is supposed to be rather close to the center of the StarWars Galaxy. Does it have a sky with enough stars to match that?

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-02, 03:31 AM
On 2002-07-01 23:03, xriso wrote:

On the topic of that movie... I recall that Coruscant is supposed to be rather close to the center of the StarWars Galaxy. Does it have a sky with enough stars to match that?


Though if Coruscant is one big, planet-wide city (think Trantor /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) then it really should be too bright to see any stars at all.

g99
2002-Jul-02, 04:09 AM
On 2002-07-01 23:31, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-07-01 23:03, xriso wrote:

On the topic of that movie... I recall that Coruscant is supposed to be rather close to the center of the StarWars Galaxy. Does it have a sky with enough stars to match that?



Though if Coruscant is one big, planet-wide city (think Trantor /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) then it really should be too bright to see any stars at all.


Well if it was at the center of the galaxy, and it was anything like ours with a "bulge" in the center, than they probobly would see only a very bright sky that seems to be illuminated from all points. The only stars they could see from the ground (during what they would call nightime) would be very large very bright stars nearby.

Also they probobly would not be able to see any stars from the brightly lit portions of the city-planet.

On a side note, would it be too hot(radiation) near the center of the galaxy to sustain a planet full life or would it be safe? Shileds and advanced technology wont work because they are implying that life and people evolved on the planet and eventually made the mega city that takes up the planet. Also what would shield the ships coming to and from the planet?

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-02, 04:46 AM
On 2002-07-02 00:09, g99 wrote:
On a side note, would it be too hot(radiation) near the center of the galaxy to sustain a planet full life or would it be safe?

Yep, it would not be a very happy place to live. Though, to be fair, they never actually say that Coruscant is at the center of the galaxy. In the first three Foundation books Asimov places Trantor (clearly the inspiration for Coruscant) right smack dab in the middle of the galaxy. In Foundation's Edge he backs off and places it a third of they way out. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

g99
2002-Jul-02, 05:46 AM
true, thanks. I've never read asimov, is he good? I've read heinlen and loved him, is he like him?

xriso
2002-Jul-02, 06:36 AM
About the location of Coruscant. I looked in a Star Wars: Jedi something-or-other book, and there is a coarse map of the galaxy at the beginning. I'd say that Coruscant is about 1/10th the way out from center, right near the edge of the "Deep Core", which I presume is the galactic bulge.

Russ
2002-Jul-02, 03:13 PM
On 2002-07-02 01:46, g99 wrote:
true, thanks. I've never read asimov, is he good? I've read heinlen and loved him, is he like him?

He is actually, IMHO, a better story teller than Heinlein. Azimov tends to base his stories on, what I'll call a "reality base" and Heinlein is more fantasy. Both are giants.

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-02, 03:50 PM
Asimov and Heinlein have different styles. Asimov tended to use more hard science, few main charactors and not too many subplots. Heinlein's stories tend to be a bit more complex with a lot of subtle context. That being said, while I enjoy both writers, I do prefer Asimov.

g99
2002-Jul-02, 05:51 PM
Thanks alot. I will look into azimov. But even if Coruscant id 1/10th from the galactic center, their sky would be immensely brighter than it is shown on the movie during "nighttime" and they would not see any stars at all. This is because the stars light has to travel a shorter distance to find them.

Also I am a little rought on my astronomy here, but isn't the main porton of star formation and gas cluds that form planetary ststems in the "arms" of the galaxy with the dead and dieing stars near the center?

pvtpylot
2002-Jul-02, 07:05 PM
On 2002-07-02 13:51, g99 wrote:
Thanks alot. I will look into azimov. But even if Coruscant id 1/10th from the galactic center, their sky would be immensely brighter than it is shown on the movie during "nighttime" and they would not see any stars at all. This is because the stars light has to travel a shorter distance to find them.

Also I am a little rought on my astronomy here, but isn't the main porton of star formation and gas cluds that form planetary ststems in the "arms" of the galaxy with the dead and dieing stars near the center?


If you go to Amazon or Google be sure to spell it with an "S" and not a "Z". "Azimov" will get you some funny search results. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif I'd never heard anything special about the age of the stars at a spiral galaxy's center, I would think that there would be the same distribution of stellar ages as anywhere else since dying stars in the center would still create new nebula which in turn create new stars.

g99
2002-Jul-02, 09:04 PM
yes, that makes sense. But currently the theory (or so my astronomy professor has taught me last year) that a "gravity wave" propegates throught the spiral arms and dark matter at the edge of the galaxy. I think the stars at the center are still to distant to form new stars unless one goes supernove right next to a gas cloud. But i could be wrong.

By the way, in all of the star wars, wouldnt the desert planet (i forget the name) be torn apart by the gravitational pulls of the two suns? Also how can there be air on that planet and the ice planet from empire strikes back if there are no plants? I know it is only a movie, but sometimes you have got to be critical.

I just looked up azimov on google, pretty funny. Half of the sites were in russian and i get some funny websites. I even found a coule of bookstores selling his books but with a "z" not an "s" I just re-read "the forever war" by joe haldeman (his only good book, the rest were decent). Very good book, you should read it.

ronin
2002-Jul-11, 06:27 PM
On 2002-07-02 00:09, g99 wrote:


On 2002-07-01 23:31, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-07-01 23:03, xriso wrote:

On the topic of that movie... I recall that Coruscant is supposed to be rather close to the center of the StarWars Galaxy. Does it have a sky with enough stars to match that?



Though if Coruscant is one big, planet-wide city (think Trantor /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) then it really should be too bright to see any stars at all.


Well if it was at the center of the galaxy, and it was anything like ours with a "bulge" in the center, than they probobly would see only a very bright sky that seems to be illuminated from all points. The only stars they could see from the ground (during what they would call nightime) would be very large very bright stars nearby.

Also they probobly would not be able to see any stars from the brightly lit portions of the city-planet.

On a side note, would it be too hot(radiation) near the center of the galaxy to sustain a planet full life or would it be safe? Shileds and advanced technology wont work because they are implying that life and people evolved on the planet and eventually made the mega city that takes up the planet. Also what would shield the ships coming to and from the planet?

From the maps provided in the latest novels (which george has declared to be official star wars material) Coruscant is about 1/4 of the way from the galactic core.

g99
2002-Jul-11, 06:39 PM
Then most likely it would be WAY too bright to see that many stars, form what we inderstand today of our galaxy. Thanks alot for clearing that up, and Welcome to the Boards grimlocke /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif!!!

Matherly
2002-Jul-12, 04:47 PM
On 2002-07-01 18:26, g99 wrote:
this is being nit picky but: Star wars takes place a Long, Long, Long time ago many of the srats we see now are just forming or have not reached very far yet. I know that it probobly does not take place in our galaxy, but they still should not see as many stars as they do.


First of all, it's Spaceballs that takes place a long, long, long (wheew) time ago. Star Wars only has one Long /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Secondly, Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far, far away. Logically, a galaxy that is far, far is not our galaxy.

David Hall
2002-Jul-29, 06:18 PM
On 2002-07-02 11:50, pvtpylot wrote:

Asimov and Heinlein have different styles. Asimov tended to use more hard science, few main charactors and not too many subplots. Heinlein's stories tend to be a bit more complex with a lot of subtle context. That being said, while I enjoy both writers, I do prefer Asimov.


It's been a while since I've read Asimov now, but as I remember him, he really doesn't use much hard science at all. My feeling is that the science in his books is more space-opera-like than Heinlein, blasters, robots, hyperspace warships and the lot. Where Asimov really shows his difference is in his characters. Heinlein tends to have archetypical characters, rough space pilots, genius scientists, clever con-men, the beautiful-but-deadly lady sidekick. Asimov's characters feel more rounded and human, with odd motivations and personality quirks. He also focuses less on the characters alone, and more on the big story and how the characters' actions shape the course of events. His novels are more psychological in nature. In any case, they have a more "realistic" feel to them than Heinlein's do.

I find it interesting that in the end both writers couldn't avoid the temptation to unite their old storylines into one continuity. Asimov combined his Robot and Foundation series by making the one into the history of the other. Heinlein combined all of his various stories by incorporating multiple realities and probability-jumping technology. In both cases I think the result felt a little contrived.

But in any case, you really must read the Foundation series and the early Robot novels. They really are classics of the genre, and not to be missed.

David Hall
2002-Jul-29, 06:36 PM
On 2002-07-02 17:04, g99 wrote:

yes, that makes sense. But currently the theory (or so my astronomy professor has taught me last year) that a "gravity wave" propegates throught the spiral arms and dark matter at the edge of the galaxy. I think the stars at the center are still to distant to form new stars unless one goes supernove right next to a gas cloud. But i could be wrong.

As I understand it, the stars in the galactic core are thought to be mostly older stars, which explains the more reddish nature of the core compared to the bluish spiral arms. I don't know the details, but the core is also gas-poor, meaning there can't be much new star formation there. I think the core is really better thought of as a giant globular cluster, or even better as an eliptical galaxy, with a lot of gas and newer stars in orbit about it.



By the way, in all of the star wars, wouldnt the desert planet (i forget the name) be torn apart by the gravitational pulls of the two suns? Also how can there be air on that planet and the ice planet from empire strikes back if there are no plants? I know it is only a movie, but sometimes you have got to be critical.


Look at the BA's review of The Phantom Menace (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/starwars2.html) for his discussion of the orbit of Tatooine. It appears that the planet can safely orbit around both stars at once, or more precisely around the mutual center of gravity of the two stars. Now, as to why they have oxygen atmospheres, who knows. Maybe Tatooine has an ecosystem something like that in Dune, where the sandworms produced free oxygen (not that there are sandworms on Tatooine, but something could be producing it). Or maybe Tatooine was once cooler and had more life, and the oxygen is a left over from that time. The same could be said of Hoth, which may just be going through a very nasty ice-age at the moment.