Imperial Military/Government Ranking (help plz)

I don't like being played against other people knight. I don't need the flattery, please, your just as knowledgeable as anyone of us. You could do a good job in a debate yourself, so there is no need for you to praise me.

Please, instead of turning me and genghis into an exposition take a side you most agree with and defend it, but please don't turn me into a sideshow attraction, I resent that.

 

I wasn't trying to do that. I for one like to see good debates, and I've never seen the two of you on opposite ends of a debate, which is what was happening here. If you noticed from my post prior to the one about the debate, I was more or less offering up theories that would actually support both sides of the issue of Endor. It presented theories as to why Endor could be the gas giant, but have been believed to have been a different planet.

For offending you, I am sorry, was not my intent. But as for being as knowledgeable as the two of you, you should note that I usually turn to you two on a good bit of stuff. I may know a good bit, but the two of you still know more than me. For that reason, I always view you two as being more knowledgeable.

Again, I appologize for offending.

 

It's ok. No problem. and I forgive you. But I must state that I'm really not that knowledgeable walking encyclapedia people think I am. I know alot, but I'm far from knowing everything, and I use my sourcebook collection(which resides by my desk), or novels to bring up information I don't remember all the details about, or I get knowledge and discuss things with my contacts on aim, or PMs.

So often times my ideas are tempered from knowledge of many people. I'd call it a semi shared endeavor, and would like to think knight that you are one of those on my list of shared informants. I'm sure you have access to stuff I don't have.(My collection is far from being complete.)

 

I don't know, it seems you have virtually all the sources I have, and then some. Like you, I like to get out my books, sourcebooks, comics, and magazines. And you know I have the habit of not only quoteing, but often telling where I'm pulling the quote from and giving and often giving it word for word. And with the novels I will provide chapter and page number/numbers so folks can look it up for themseleves if they don't believe me. If that helps you out any, then I guess I am among those who help.

 

Funny, when people want to argue that, for example DarkEmpire-Sourcebook claiming Thrawn a failure in Palpatines eyes (despite increasing the size of the imperial territory by hundred percent (EC)), is more true, than the DarkForceRising-Sourcebook claiming the planet of Endor lost.

It would have been a better way to say, that Palpatine was playing out his wanne-be-successors against each other, while Thrawn was secretly still working for him.

This would explain his reapperence five years and not five months after the battle of Endor. It would also explain Thrawns knowledge about the Mount Tantis storehouse and other things.

Palpatine might have been unwilling to admit it, since Thrawns death was somewhat embarrasing (to be killed by his own bodyguard, not that the emperor suffered a better fate (twice)).

Poor Emperor. To play everybody out against each other, manipulating things from the distance with skilled hand and not recognizing that one of his most trusted servants (again) was responsible for his final fall (i´m talking about Carnor Jax).

 

Actually, I can see one other problem with the RotJ novel quote. Was "the original" planet Endor a gas giant or a solid planet?

If it was a solid planet, Endor would not have been classified as a moon, but as a sister planet. In fact, our own "moon" should actually be classified a sister planet to the Earth because it does not actually orbit the Earth. There are times in its orbit when it is actually falling away from the Earth, something that an orbiting body cannot do. The moon orbits the sun instead.

However, if it were a gas giant, any cataclysm that destroyed it would have taken Endor (the moon) with it. A gas giant is actually a form of a protostar called a brown dwarf. It is almost halfway between a planet and a star. Any cataclysm that could have destroyed a gas giant would have, at the very least, burned off the atmosphere of Endor (the moon). Anything left would have been highly toxic to human-like metabolisms. There is no way that that sort of damage could have been undone in only 1000 years by nature alone. Nature just works too slow.

So, our choices are: Endor was never a moon to begin with or it has no breathable atmosphere. Again, both of these options contradict the movies (and the RotJ novel). Therefore, the RotJ novel contradicts itself. It states that Endor (the planet) was destroyed 1000 years ago and yet it states that Endor (the moon) is/was a moon and that it currently has a breathable atmosphere.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball...
"Actually, I can see one other problem with the RotJ novel quote. Was "the original" planet Endor a gas giant or a solid planet? "

That's my whole point earlier. We don't know. We know the planet disappeared and "a gas giant" appeared after that first disappearance.

"If it was a solid planet, Endor would not have been classified as a moon, but as a sister planet."

The fallacy that their classification system must follow our own. That may not be the case.

"However, if it were a gas giant, any cataclysm that destroyed it would have taken Endor (the moon) with it."

Irrelevent - a gross assumption. It would depend on the cataclysm. And no, the Endor moon wouldn't necessarily automatically have gone with it. A Sith Lord may simply have flinged the planet out of the system, for instance.

"There is no way that that sort of damage could have been undone in only 1000 years by nature alone. Nature just works too slow."

Fallacy to assume that has to be the case. There already exist a clear precedent for technological, biological as well as Sith-alchemical -induced terraforming within the GFFA.

"So, our choices are..."

You unreasonably limited them. There's many more possibilities than what you listed, even based on already existing Star Wars precedents.

 

Genghis,

You are using a cop-out. While you're at it, why don't you claim that "destroyed" could have a different meaning in the GFFA? Or how about "planet" having a different meaning? Let's take a look at the definitions of "moon" and "planet". I quote m-w.com:

Main Entry: 1 moon
Pronunciation: 'mün
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mone, from Old English mOna; akin to Old High German mAno moon, Latin mensis month, Greek mEn month, mEnE moon
Date: before 12th century
1 a often capitalized : the earth's natural satellite that shines by the sun's reflected light, revolves about the earth from west to east in about 29 1/2 days with reference to the sun or about 27 1/3 days with reference to the stars, and has a diameter of 2160 miles (3475 kilometers), a mean distance from the earth of about 238,900 miles (384,400 kilometers), and a mass about one eightieth that of the earth -- usually used with the
b : one complete moon cycle consisting of four phases
c : SATELLITE 2; specifically : a natural satellite of a planet

And to expand on that:
Main Entry: sat·el·lite
Pronunciation: 'sa-t&l-"It
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin satellit-, satelles attendant
Date: circa 1548
2 a : a celestial body orbiting another of larger size b : a manufactured object or vehicle intended to orbit the earth, the moon, or another celestial body

and:
Main Entry: plan·et
Pronunciation: 'pla-n&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English planete, from Old French, from Late Latin planeta, modification of Greek planEt-, planEs, literally, wanderer, from planasthai to wander -- more at FLOOR
Date: 13th century
1 a : any of the seven celestial bodies sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn that in ancient belief have motions of their own among the fixed stars
b (1) : any of the large bodies that revolve around the sun in the solar system (2) : a similar body associated with another star
c : EARTH -- usually used with the

I only copied the astronomical definitions of the words. Feel free to look them up yourself for the other definitions.

As you can see, a moon is "a natural satellite of a planet", meaning that it is "a celestial body orbiting another of larger size". Solid planets that are significantly larger than the Earth are not stable because of the intense gravitational stresses involved on them. In order for Endor (the moon) to have the gravitational field shown in the movies, it would have to be approximately the size and density of the Earth. While you could claim that it could be smaller and more dense, this would require that it be composed of heavier elements which, in turn, would increase the natural radioactivity of the celestial body. That would make it much more hazardous to life forms of the type that we saw in RotJ. If Endor (the Planet) was solid, then Endor (the moon) was not really a moon.

On the other hand, you say that we do not know the nature of the cataclysm that destroyed Endor (the planet). If it were a gas giant, there are only a few limited options. A simple planetary collision would not have been able to do it because of the nature of gas giants. The only feasible way to do it (at least under our current understanding of astrophysics and cosmology) would be to have it destabilize for some reason and explode outward, much like a form of nova.

I will admit that I have not read the novelization of RotJ, but am working off of the comments above. The original post said it was "destroyed", not "flung away" or "removed". If you would care to post the exact quote from the novel that says it was not destroyed (or does not specifically say it was destroyed, if you prefer), then I will gladly accept as a possible explaination that it was a Sith Lord. However, if it was destroyed, then the burden of proof remains upon YOU to explain how it was destroyed without damaging the moon, for that is what you are claiming.

All of this is jsut

 

My proof is that how it happend is irrelevent, because in the GFFA, anything could have happened.

You're basing your knowledge on a very limited view of what's possible. Anything is possible. Therefore, there's no contradictions.

We know at some point a planet existed. We know it was destroyed. We know at other points a gas giant exists... etc.

That's all you have to know about it.

We can come up with all sorts of crazy things like cloaking fields, etc. to explain it. But, the point remains, nothing needs to be explained. For example, you're problem stems from lack of an open mind - if you don't think flinging the planet would destroy it ? then add in, the Sith Lord flung it into a sun. Now, your problem's solved. There's pretty much an infinite amount of possibilities about how it happened. But all of them lead to the same conclusion.

There's no contradiction, because all of the sources are correct.

If you want me to come up with some sort of plan that works to appease you it can be easily done - but it's merely fan-fic, so again irrelevent.

Prove that one of the sources is in error, and then we can talk about what happened. However, I don't think that such proof exists.

 

Genghis, like I said, that is a cop-out.

Saying anything can happen is simply a way for you to avoid the fact that there are errors:

An example of two sources that contradict about the current planet Endor: The Ewok movies and Truce at Bakura.

In the Ewok movies we clearly see that Endor is a gas giant. I forget exactly when they occur in the timeline, but I believe it is about 4-6 years before RotJ. Yet, the first line of TaB states "Above a dead world...". Dead world is a term used to describe (and to imply) a solid planet, not a gas giant. So tell me, which is it? A solid planet or a gas giant?

Or are you going to claim that there was another switch? Are you going to try some semantic switch to claim that "dead world" really referred to a gas giant?

In addition to all of this, you are forgetting that changing the orbit of Endor (the moon or the planet) would result in massive changes in the climate on the moon. If the previous planet had been a gas giant, the planet would then have lost a significant amount of heat and would be experiencing an ice age. If it were a solid planet and replaced with a gas giant only 1000 years ago, it would be a lot hotter than its ecosystem was designed for and would not have had enough time to adapt to the level we saw in RotJ. The chances of it being placed in a new orbit in such a way that its climate remained unchanged are so poor that even C-3PO would have a hard time calculating them.

Now it's your turn. PPOR.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball...
"Saying anything can happen is simply a way for you to avoid the fact that there are errors"

PPOR There are no errors.

I can provide proof stating that all of these sources are canon and are part of the overall continuity LFL wishes to maintain. Can you provide proof backing up your claim that any are in error.

There's no point in trying to continue discussion if you cannot even meet that most basic burden of proof.

 

Genghis, I did post proof of an error relating to the planet Endor. Go back and read my last post. It is seen as a gas giant in the Ewok movies and is described as a dead planet (a term to refer to a solid planet that is incapable of supporting life) in TaB. THIS IS AN ERROR!!! Two "canon" sources directly contradict each other.

So, like I said, where is your proof. I have met the burden of proof, you have yet to do anything but deny my proof, without supplying your own proof to support your opinion. You know it, I know it and anyone else who reads our discussion knows it.

You have constantly claimed that I need to supply proof, and I have. Where's yours?

Kimball Kinnison

 

May I add in a theory (though it is probably doomed to be rejected)?

Genghis makes a good argument of the gas gaint the Endor Moon orbits is not necessarily the planet Endor (and here is where I add my theory) and may actaully be a satelitle of the Endor Moon. Now, this sounds odd, but bare with me for a moment.

Suppose the planet Endor was destroyed and the Endor Moon was far enough away to not be disturbed by this sudden loss, then the Moon, perhaps, could continue to survive and take up orbit around the system's sun and continue to harbor life. Now, the new planet (Genghis, I am trying to defend you, but with my own added twist, please don't hate me for, perhaps, twisiting your theory) is perhaps a planet that was pulled out of a wormhole (rare, but not unheard of...after all, it is STAR WARS) and took up orbit around the Endor Moon. Since the Moon was always merely known as the Endor Moon, it would probably keep its name, though it had now become the planet (strange idea, ehh?). The only problem with my idea is where the planet came from, but the concept, I believe, is good. Perhaps the planet that was once Endor was enourmous and therefore its moon was enourmous (this is all in comparison to Earth, of course). The Endor Moon was, perhaps, larger than most gas "giants" and other planets. I hope my idea made sense, if not at least was understood by some body.

Okay, destroy my theory now, but at least I have the pride that I tried (TRIED) to sound intelligent and help out here (I tried to help you, Genghis!).

 

GrandAdmiralJello,

Even in a scenario such as the one you suggest, it would take more than 1000 years to have live develop from a primordial soup (for lack of a better term) into ewoks. A similar transformation took several million years here on Earth. Since the GFFA is still in our Universe (a long time ago and far far away, but still in our universe), I don't hink that the rules of nature are that much different than here on Earth (nor ar the laws of physics).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball...
"Genghis, I did post proof of an error relating to the planet Endor. Go back and read my last post. It is seen as a gas giant in the Ewok movies and is described as a dead planet (a term to refer to a solid planet that is incapable of supporting life) in TaB. THIS IS AN ERROR!!! Two "canon" sources directly contradict each other."

LOL! Kimball, a discrepency is NOT an error. An error is LFL saying "We kriffed up." They have not done so. Both sources are 100% correct. It CAN be seen as a gas giant in the Ewok movies and IS a dead planet in TAB. The two take place at different times - therefore a direct comparison between the two proves nothing. Anything could have happened in between. And, if you think there's an error, then WHERE IS THE ERROR?" PPOR. You can't say "Hey, two different sources from two different times say two different things." That's fact, or that's correct. If you think there's an error, then what is that error. You haven't stated what you think it is.

So, like I said, where is your proof.

Paraphrased, "It's all canon." - LFL. Therefore, none of the sources are in error, as none of the sources are marked with Infinities. Therefore, all of the sources are the true, 100% correct accounting of the events surrounding Endor. Because you've suggested something that is just flat out wrong, it's up to you to prove that an error exists and that LFL was wrong that "all" of it is canon.

"You have constantly claimed that I need to supply proof, and I have."

PPOR You haven't done anything but give vague innuendo that you think an error exists, and certainly you haven't posted anything remotely like proof regarding any such errors.

"Even in a scenario such as the one you suggest, it would take more than 1000 years to have live develop from a primordial soup (for lack of a better term) into ewoks."

That's providing that life carries on naturally. There certainly could have been unnatural tampering which can easily accelerate that.

Basically, your "error" amounts to nothing more than a closed-mind regarding the goings-on within the GFFA.

"I don't hink that the rules of nature are that much different than here on Earth (nor ar the laws of physics)."

We don't have Sith Lords capable of producing terraforming vegetation and creatures capable of biologically destroying a planet in mere hours. Neither do we have a mystical energy known as "The Force" which can allow people to summon horrible Force Storms, choke people and launch lightening from their fingertips. It's safe to say the laws of physics and other "universal laws" are vastly different.

 

Genghis,

Do you accept that Star Wars is set in a galaxy a long time ago and far, far away? If you do, then you must accept that the laws of physics are the same there as they are here. The laws of physics cannot change just because you are in a different part of the universe.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It states that all things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the right one. Let's compare our two theories for complexity.

Your theory (paraphrased, feel free to correct me if you think I've misrepresented it):
A Sith Lord destroyed the original planet Endor and then, in the space of 1000 years, the moons of this planet were captured by another planet, placed into stable orbits, any damage to the ecosystem was repaired (or life came into being and developed at a rate hundreds of thousands of times faster than anywhere else) and then the new planet appeared the day after the battle of Endor (TaB), diappeared 5 years later (DFRSB) only to reappear the next year(Dark Apprentice).

My theory:
James Kahn messed up, as did Bill Slavicsek (basing his error off of Kahn's). The planet Endor was never destroyed. The moon Endor's orbit was never changed (thereby not breaking the laws of physics).

Here is the evidence that both have to fit (in order for all things to be equal, thanks to Valiento for some of the info):

1) RotJ novel states: "Death Star floated in stationary orbit above the green moon endor--a moon whose mother planet has long since died of unknown cataclysm and disapeared into unknown realms"

2) The Battle of Endor in the Marvel RotJ comics shows that the planet exists, a big brown circuler object in one panel.

3) The script of Rotj referred to one of the small globes Endor (the planet).

4) From the movie section of TOS, "Secluded in a remote corner of the Outer Rim Territories, the gas giant Endor and its verdant moon of the same name would easily have been overlooked by a busy galaxy were it not for the decisive battle that occurred there. Endor serves as the gravesite of both Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader. It was here that the Rebel Alliance began the path of victory over the Galactic Empire."

5) From the EU section: "Endor is one of nine moons orbiting a lifeless gas giant in the Moddell sector. A convoluted hyperspace route and the enormous gravity well of its mother planet renders Endor a difficult place to visit, making it an ideal secret construction site for the Empire."

6) The Aura Sing Bounty Hunter comic shows it as a brown orb in the first panel.

7) From the Ewok movies: [image=http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/art/endorsky.jpg] A similar image is shown in the Ewok cartoons.

8) Truce at Bakura states that the planet is there.

9) Dark Force Rising Sourcebook states that it is not there.

10) Dark Apprentice states that it is there again.

Your theory requires a long series of coincidences and improbable occurances, violating several natural laws in the process. Mine requires no coincidences and obeys all natural laws. Yours requires the action of an unnamed Sith Lord to function, and still does not explain the lack of a planet in the DFRSB and its subsequent reappearance. Mine explains every single one of those data points, without exception.

So, by Occam's Razor, which one is more simple? The long string of coincidences or the short and concise explaination? You know where I stand.

To quote from Star Trek: "You cannae change the laws o' physics!"

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball,

I take it that was all to hide the fact that you don't have any proof an error exists.

? Star Wars is fantasy fiction, man!

When I see one of my co-workers shoot lightening bolts from their arse, or fling my pickup truck across town with some mystical energy field, then I'd agree with you our physics are the same as the GFFA's physics.

Until then, our laws of the universe are vastly different than those which exist in the GFFA.

Perhaps you can supply a link to images of yourself using the Force to conjure up a Force Storm which sucks someone across the galaxy. That might make your argument regarding the connection between our universe and the GFFA a bit more believeable.

 

However, it makes the claim of being set in our universe, so the natural laws of our universe still hold.

Just because (from the SW perspective) we have no understanding of the Force, and because of that are unable to use it (i.e. Force storms, etc.) does not mean that it is set in another universe and therefore can abide by other physical laws. Like I said, do you accept that SW claims to be set in our universe, only at a location located a long time a go and a LOOONG distance away? If not, how do you reconcile it's claim in the opening statement of each movie?

Kimball Kinnison

Edit: I accidentally said "is not set in another universe".

 

Kimball...
"Like I said, do you accept that SW claims to be set in our universe, only at a location located a long time a go and a LOOONG distance away? If not, how do you reconcile it's claim in the opening statement of each movie?"

Nope - you're stretching. The "fact" is that Star Wars is set "a long time ago" in "a galaxy far, far away." These facts state nothing about the universal setting.

And in fact your statement is also WRONG. Star Wars is also set in hyperspace as well as Otherspace - two places which aren't even in the same dimension as the GFFA, much less the same universe or galaxy. The GFFA exists in some dimension called "Realspace." Whether realspace is the same dimension as our own has never been clarified.

If you claim it is within this universe, then what are you basing that on? Where's the statement that "The GFFA is in the same universe as Earth? Or even the same 'dimension' as Earth?"

I accept that there are similar lifeforms - and even the same lifeforms (ducks, humans, etc.) - but that's not proof of your claims.

I accept that the GFFA is in a galaxy far, far away. Stretching that statement to mean "In the same universe" is not possible, as that meaning is simply not there. If the GFFA is in a different universe, that would also satisfy the statement, "in a galaxy far, far away."

(And taking your claim to an even more absurd level, Lucas has stated that the EU universe is different from "his universe" So, presumably, the movies exist in some Lucas pocket universe bordered by the seperate LFL EU pocket universe. ? )

 

Genghis,

You obviously lack an understanding of the terms "universe" and "dimension".

A dimension is a scale of measurement along an axis. A universe (in the context of my comments) is a single, 4-dimensional, space-time continuum, where each dimension is at right angles to every other axis.

"Long time ago" is a measure of time (commonly known as the fourth dimention). "Far, far away" is a measure of distance (the other three dimension of a space-time continuum).

From its own statement to its audience, each movie tells the audience that it occured at a point (or region) that is displaced in both time and space from them in the same 4-dimensional space-time continuum. Both Lucas's GFFA and the EU GFFA (if you accept them as either different or the same) claim to be displaced from us in 3 spacial (far, far away) and 1 temporal (long time ago) dimensions. Give me a reference from within any of your "canon" sources (not interviews, etc.) that show that this is false. Whether you like it or not, that quote at the beginning of each movie is canon, and it only supports the 4-dimensional displacement. YOU are reading more into it than is there (as you have accused me of doing).

I need to go to class. I'd be happy to continue this tomorrow. (11 straight hours of class can be hard to deal with.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball,
You obviously lack an understanding of the terms "universe" and "dimension."

The definition of a (the) universe with respect to place or location is merely the aggregate entity of all the stars.

A Dimension is a level of existence or consciousness. A dimension (level) can be made up of any number of dimensions (measurement in a direction along an axis), certainly not limited to four within a fantasy setting. With respect to time being the "fourth dimension," that is a common designation but not the only one. A "fourth dimension" can be a dimension outside the range of ordinary experience. It is not known how many dimensions the dimension of hyperspace has - only that it is coterminus with realspace. It is not known how many dimensions otherspace has. In fact, not much is known about that dimension at all.

You cannot take "galaxy far, far away" to mean anything more than its set in a galaxy far, far away. There's absolutely no implication that realspace or this galaxy is the same dimension as "ourspace" or our universe.

I'm not reading anything more into "galaxy" that is "far, far away."

You have read the statement to mean "in the same universe and dimension as our own earth universe and dimension" - something it in no way, shape, or form actually means.

 

Before I leave for Afghanistan, may I say something on Genghis's behalf?

Genghis is correct in saying that no where in all of STAR WARS does it ever state that their galaxy is in the same universe as ours, therefore it is possible that the STAR WARS universe is actaully our own in a multiverse, or in other words a parallel universe. It could also simply be just some other multiverse in the infinite series of multiverses that exist (unforutantly or fortunanly, by apllying this theory, it would be STAR WARS did not only happen a "long time ago", but is occuring as we speak, err, write and read). In support of Genghis, what of the explosions and fires that occur in space? And in many STAR WARS books, such as in Specter of the Past and within the Jedi Academy Trilogy, it talks of beings (mostly humans) surviving in space without special suits on or anything, simply the clothes off their back. Of course, mention is made that the person would begin to freeze (as Nawara Ven described in X-Wing: The Krytos Trap when thinking back to the first battle of Borelias--I hope that is spelled correctly), but beings (well, at least humans) are suppose to explode or implode, but one way or another not live, therefore there is something strange after the STAR WARS universe or galaxy when compared to our own. Secondly, in all the STAR WARS movies and most of the novels and other literature, there is made mention of explosions and fires. In ROTJ we all clearly saw the Executor's bridge burst into flames and then crash and BURN in the hull of the second Death Star. Now, for their to be flame, their must be oxygen, but space has no oxygen... Though this may not be exactly what one would call phsycis, it does raise a question, if this sort of thing happens in the STAR WARS outer-planetary space and not here in our own outer-planetary space, then what else could be different? Perhaps even pyshics could be different? I mean, do you think that these "universal" laws all truly apply to all the multiverses? (I realize that the term "universal" is used to define things that apply to everything we have discovered so far.) Another thing is sound in STAR WARS. We obviously here explosions all the time in the movies, but as a famous qutoe goes: "In space, no one can hear you scream" (or something of the like). Sound cannot be generated in space, so then how is it generated in STAR WARS space? A theory was brought about that it's sounds speakers within your starship/fighter/etc. makes to keep you alert and not disoriented, but if that were so, then what about all the scenes we don't see from within the cockpit or inside of a starship? Of course, you can argue that the entire movie was meant to be filmed as if you were some invisble person flying around in a fighter or something watching all the action, but some evidence from LucasFilm would be needed to prove that theory.

I'm not sure if that helped, Genghis, but it's the second time I try to help and I think this may have helped more than the last time (since it seemed disregarded all in all). That is all for my try to help out here.

 

"Genghis is correct in saying that no where in all of STAR WARS does it ever state that their galaxy is in the same universe as ours, therefore it is possible that the STAR WARS universe is actaully our own in a multiverse, or in other words a parallel universe."

Actually star wars: Christmas in the stars comments on historical events that happen on earth in the future(Our past, there future). Don't ask me how threepio have knowledge about are past history but he does. Japanese are mentioned as well. As well santa claus is in the story. This story is set before VP, since chewie is still alive. I don't see an infinities icon, so by LFL policy it is canon, .

Then the omnicient observer who narrates the lando books(whills or otherwise), knows about the Portuguese, and there man of wars.

The british box of the ewok movies says that the towani family is trying to get back to earth.

"what of the explosions and fires that occur in space?"

Some chemicles can burn aneurobically(without oxygen). As well there are explosians and burning escaped oxygen when a ship exploded. This has been explained in the EU at least once as I remember.



"And in many STAR WARS books, such as in Specter of the Past and within the Jedi Academy Trilogy, it talks of beings (mostly humans) surviving in space without special suits on or anything, simply the clothes off their back."

Actually they do have have a suit on or be within the ships shields(which hold the pressure). AC Crispen talks about explosive decompression rebel dawn. So yes it exists. The Jumpsuits that pilots wear are said to be able to hold pressure for a certain amount of time.


"Of course, mention is made that the person would begin to freeze (as Nawara Ven described in X-Wing: The Krytos Trap when thinking back to the first battle of Borelias--I hope that is spelled correctly), but beings (well, at least humans)"

Yes the books do talk about pilots freezing.


"are suppose to explode or implode, but one way or another not live, therefore there is something strange after the STAR WARS universe or galaxy when compared to our own."

Like i mentioned explosive decrompression(You can't implode in space) is mentioned. But I wouldn't call it literally exploding it takes a second or two to happen, and freezing tends to take place first. But it's not like a literal explosion, more like vains stressing and rupturing. As well as the lungs.

"Secondly, in all the STAR WARS movies and most of the novels and other literature, there is made mention of explosions and fires. In ROTJ we all clearly saw the Executor's bridge burst into flames and then crash and BURN in the hull of the second Death Star. Now, for their to be flame, their must be oxygen, but space has no oxygen..."

There are some chemicles that burn in anearobic environement, as well escaping oxygen will burn as well.



"Another thing is sound in STAR WARS. We obviously here explosions all the time in the movies, but as a famous qutoe goes: "In space, no one can hear you scream" (or something of the like). Sound cannot be generated in space, so then how is it generated in STAR WARS space? A theory was brought about that it's sounds speakers within your starship/fighter/etc. makes to keep you alert and not disoriented, but if that were so, then what about all the scenes we don't see from within the cockpit or inside of a starship?"

That is the official explanation, in several sources actually. I think one of the EGs went into the explanation.

 

Vex...
Be careful over there, man.

"Genghis is correct in saying that no where in all of STAR WARS does it ever state that their galaxy is in the same universe as ours..."

Exactly.

"therefore it is possible that the STAR WARS universe is actaully our own in a multiverse, or in other words a parallel universe..."

Well, remember officially, there's definitely seperate "parallel universes" - there the Infinities Universe and the Canon Universe. It seems there's no limit to the number of different "Infinities." In addition, nothing which states the Canon Universe is the same one as our own. And hardly something which can be implied from "galaxy far, far away."

In fact, Vex listed a whole number of examples of how the "universal laws" of the GFFA are different from our own.

One minor point... the following is a good detailed account regarding the effects of vacuum exposure

Valiento...
"Actually star wars: Christmas in the stars comments on historical events that happen on earth in the future..."

Certainly there's linkages (English language, ducks, Santa Claus, etc.). But again, where's it state all are in the same universe? No one's saying they're not able to see the future in different galaxies/universes/dimensions.

When ducks can't fly spaceships, I can wonder how a duck waddled many galaxies away about as easily as I can imagine how a duck waddled a universe away. That is, unless the foul beast down at my local pond knows a heck of a lot more than he's quacking on about. ?