Applying the Big Bang to Star Wars and its Starmap

If you were to apply the Big Bang theory to the galaxy, would that not make the extreme fringe stars and their system worlds the oldest? Indeed, would places like the Unknown Regions not be the oldest stars in the galaxy?

And yet the core of the worlds are closer to the galactic center, how about that? The further you go, the less sophisticated and rougher they generally are.

Odd, isn't it?

 

The simple answer is no, the stars of the Unknown Regions would not be amongst the oldest in the galaxy.

A more complex answer requires a degree of knowledge in astronomy...

In our own galaxy, which formed approximately 10 billion years ago, the first stars to form were those situated towards the center of the proto-galactic mess of gas, dust, and other debris. As those stars matured and "died," the materials they spewed forth into space eventually saw use again in the formation of new stars and planets farther out in the galaxy. Around 5 billion years ago, our own sun was formed, and soon afterwards its companion planets. Our sun is relatively near the edge of the galaxy, suggesting that it was one of the latest stars to form in the Milky Way. As you go closer to the galactic core, you'll find many stars that are increasingly higher in age.

Logically, the events regarding the formation of the Star Wars galaxy would follow a similar trend. Therefore, if we were in the Star Wars galaxy, we'd be a relatively young civilization in the Unknown Regions, waiting for someone like the technologically advanced Duros to discover us.

Does that make sense?

 

Well, the Big Bang theory is bunk anyway considering scientists still can't answer the simple question, "what came before the big bang?"

Its definately not accepted unanimously, even amongst scientists.

 

Also, depending on the age of the galaxy, stars will be of different ages almost all around. Depending on the type of star, it may have died, dispersed, and the same hydrogen reformed into another star at least once before.

 

Does that theory hold for all stars in the outer regions of a galaxy? Or might there be older stars there among the younger ones?

 

EDIT: Misunderstood the question. Damn.

 

It's okay, Guy, I wasn't surprised.

So, is it more unlikely or unfeasible that Unknown Region-type stars wouldn't have been the oldest, based on the notion that even if or when they were flung out, their individual stars ignited at their own pace? Did I get that right?

Bakura, Almania, Calamari, Dantooine---all are fringe worlders, but it's also a matter of coloniation and indig natives too.

I don't have a misty clue what G-type stars and all that is, and The Orphans Trilogy and Ben Bova books are full it. Would they affect the evolution of birth? I'm remembering a Carconth from Tyrant's Test, sixth largest supernova on permament watch, ready to go nova any time, and it was close to the Deep Core, wasn't it? So I guess distance from galactic core may not be a deciding factor.

Anyone tried to find the best likely planet that is the center of the galaxy? That'd be a neat story, if you threw in some Sith or something.

 

>>Well, the Big Bang theory is bunk anyway considering scientists still can't answer the simple question, "what came before the big bang?"<<

Let's just ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

 

The Star Wars Universe was created by the Force in 6 days. On the seventh day, the force rested.

 

In any case, the big bang theory refers to the creation of the universe, and it doesn't really apply to the creation of individual galaxies in that universe.

 

I guess I should have said that as you get closer to the center of the galaxy, you'll find stars that are generally older than those at the outer edges. It's a certainty that there are some stars near the center of the galaxy that are younger than those at the edges.

 

"The Star Wars Universe was created by the Force in 6 days. On the seventh day, the force rested."
I agree, the force is what makes every thing in the galaxy go, as the Jedi found.

 

Thought I'd weigh in here, cause its an interesting question.

the GFFA is a spiral galaxy like our Milky way, which means it has three parts: The Halo, the Bulge and the disk.

The Halo houses the very very oldest stars of the galaxy...when gas first gathered aournd, it was roughly spherical in shape--some gas got packed together enought to form stars. As the rest of the gas collapsed together into the disk & bulge, these stars stayed in a roughly spherical 'halo' around the galaxy...thus the name.

The bulge actually has slightly older stars than the disk, because most of the active star formation occurs in the spiral arms of the disk (as the spiral arms move thru the disk, they push gas & dust together to form stars). Dying stars do push their processed material into the Interstellar medium, but it doesnt travel nicely outward thru the Galaxy--Its more that a lot of very short lived stars formed throughout the galaxy as it collapsed into its current disk shape, then they exploded giving material to the next batch of stars, and so on.

I would guess (and this is a guess). The advancement of a civilization would probably be more dependant on what kind of star it had, rather than where it developed (unless it developed in the halo)

A bigger problem for having big civilizations at the core of a galaxy is that there'd be a LOT of radiation blanketing the region from Supernovae, etc.

I don't have a misty clue what G-type stars and all that is, and The Orphans Trilogy and Ben Bova books are full it.

G-type star is just an astronomers name for the type of star our sun is...its pretty much as average a star as you can get.

Anyone tried to find the best likely planet that is the center of the galaxy? That'd be a neat story, if you threw in some Sith or something.

Actually, at the center of our galaxy there's a supermassive black hole, and we think there's one at the center of every spiral galaxy--it'd still make for a cool story tho


Someone upthread mentioned this, but thought I'd bring it up again...the Big bang theory applies to the universe at large NOT to individual galaxies. We see other galaxies moving away from us because of the expansion of the universe due to the Big Bang...but galaxies themselves are not expanding--they're held together by their gravittional mass.

Well, the Big Bang theory is bunk anyway considering scientists still can't answer the simple question, "what came before the big bang?"

Its definately not accepted unanimously, even amongst scientists.

The Big Bang marks the beginning of time AND space. You cant answer the question because there is no 'before' the Big Bang.

Big bang theory is the cornerstone of modern astronomy--scientists may not agree on all the details, but it certainly is widely accepted in the scientific community.

The Star Wars Universe was created by the Force in 6 days. On the seventh day, the force rested.

You know what? I think I like this theory :-D

 

"The Big Bang marks the beginning of time AND space."

That makes no sense logically. Time and space came into exsistence with the big bang which bears the question:

What came before the big bang? Temporal exsistence just popped into being? Which came first? The laws of quantum mechanics or its effects? They're mutually exclusive.

Check out the Shape of Space, third edition.

Its still just a theory.

 

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, because time is based around events. When nothing is happening (that is, the matter is all packed into a singularity), there's nothing to go off, and so time began with the first event--the Big Bang.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

 

And what caused that first event if what came before it cannot be measured since there was no such thing as time OR matter? A quantum 22th dimensional jack-in-the-box?

What came first? The chicken or the egg?

You can tell I drive my teachers nuts can't you? Yes, I do.

Scientists can't decide whether coffee or bacon is good or bad for you, I'm sure as hell not going to take their advice as to what caused the universe.

 

Masterskywalker, you sound like a very confused person Reading your posts makes me wonder if you really are familiar with what a theory is, as opposed to a hypothesis or a fact. It also makes me wonder if whether you are simply trying to go against the mainstream, instead of trying to find the best solution. The fact that the Big Bang theory is a theory means that it is almost universally acceptable, has been proven by the best tests available to mankind, and hasn't been disproven by any facts that have arisen. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community, as well as the majority of the religions of the world, hold the Big Bang to be the theory of time. If you have a hypothesis about the beginning of the universe that is better than the current, prevailing theory, then please state it. Otherwise, stop trying to derail poor Excellence's thread.

 

There is a lot of confusion about the Big Bang.

First question, did the Big Bang really happen, or is it just a theory? The answer? It's BOTH. There is scientific data of the universe that indicates that at one point, there was a Big Bang.

Now this is where the theory aspect of the Big Bang comes in. The Big Bang occured, but did it create the universe? In a way, yes, perhaps the Big Bang occured and it created Earth and all the planets in our solar system. But did is create the UNIVERSE? That is the theory.

So the Big Bang is fact, but as to what extent it is a fact is in question.