🧵 is it true that 99.9% of the stars in our night sky
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 00:36:30 UTC No. 16579024
that we see with naked eye are in our own galaxy? If true, why is this never taught in our normie science classes?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 00:45:58 UTC No. 16579028
>>16579024
Every individual star that you can see with your naked eye is in our galaxy. The nearest galaxy to ours appears as just a smudge, you can't make out individual stars in it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:04:38 UTC No. 16579038
>>16579028
>you can't make out individual stars in it.
obviously, but how many of the points of light (to naked eye) are other galaxies.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:16:06 UTC No. 16579049
>>16579038
None of them. There are 7 visible galaxies, one of them is the Milky Way (our own galaxy), and three of them are only visible under very exceptional circumstances. None of them appear as points of light, they are large smudges of light. The easiest to see is Andromeda, which is a smudge of light that looks larger than the Moon.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 02:00:12 UTC No. 16579081
>>16579049
>Andromeda, which is a smudge of light that looks larger than the Moon.
fascinating!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:38:50 UTC No. 16579401
>>16579081
berry kino
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:39:39 UTC No. 16579403
because nobody cares you retarded autist
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 18:32:35 UTC No. 16579589
>>16579049
>easiest to see is Andromeda
>and you can't even see it at all unless you're way out in the middle of nowhere with not a single light for dozen miles around
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:45:12 UTC No. 16579795
>>16579589
2.5 million light-years away or 25 Milky Way diameters away. Is it all just empty space between us and it or do we even know?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Feb 2025 14:17:09 UTC No. 16580330
can we see planets in another galaxy? also would we be able to detect a lone star in the empty space between Milky Way and Andromeda?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 22:24:02 UTC No. 16581927
>>16580330
>can we see planets in another galaxy?
No. We can barely even see hints of them in stars right next to our own.
>also would we be able to detect a lone star in the empty space between Milky Way and Andromeda?
With telescopes, yes. They're called Intergalactic stars.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 23:22:41 UTC No. 16581981
>>16579589
Dude, I used to see it from my house in suburban California. Andromeda is pretty easy to spot if you know where to look.
>>16580330
Yes, through gravitational lensing. We have observed planets in other galaxies that way already. I read about it years ago, this article seems to be what I could easily find under the moment although it's not exactly what I was looking for, it does explain the principle.
https://www.kwit.org/featured-progr
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:10:28 UTC No. 16582005
>>16581981
>used to
Like 50 years ago?
That pic is the best shot I can make on my dslr camera with stock lens without using tracking mount for super long exposure or stacking multiple images. Thanks to it I know exactly where to look yet I can't see shit with my actual eyes even in the darkest clearest night. Granted I'm not in a particularly dark spot but there's no large cities nearby. I'm pretty sure majority of people can't get a better view either.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 06:06:50 UTC No. 16582209
>>16581927
>They're called Intergalactic stars.
imagine how lonely it must feel finding yourself in such a system
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 14:00:14 UTC No. 16582485
>>1657902
A pesud may cop an askahully by mentioning supernovae, some which are/were potentially visible from nearby galaxies.
Were they still a star until they were done exploding? Or were they former stars and therefore don't count. Pedantry in any case ofc.
Also a gamma ray burst afterglow from a 2008 burst was visible to the naked eye (just) from 2.5 billion parsecs away for ~ 30 seconds.
So probably other such bursts outside the galaxy are potentially visible too. If one happens to be looking in the exact location in the sky at the right time.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:21:15 UTC No. 16582697
>>16582209
Only astronomers would care.
The day would look the same, at night you would only see some faint galaxies, and moons if you have them.
Frankly I would prefer more moons instead of stars.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:23:58 UTC No. 16582701
>>16579024
Maybe someday they will teach the kids properly anon. Dare to dream.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:10:38 UTC No. 16583081
>>16582697
>at night you would only see
the night sky would look like this?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:13:22 UTC No. 16583088
>>16583081
that photo is taken from behind the rover. backdrop mountain is far relative to the rock in the middle.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 22:14:42 UTC No. 16583090
>>16583088
>behind the rover
I meant behind the lander
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 23:27:07 UTC No. 16583188
>>16579024
>that we see with naked eye are in our own galaxy? If true, why is this never taught in our normie science classes?
MOST stars in the universe are red dwarf stars.
You can not see any red dwarf star with just your eyes.
NO red dwarf star has 'died of old age' since the universe began.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 06:34:32 UTC No. 16583423
>>16583188
Red dwarfs make up the bulk of the Milky Way's population, about 73%. Sunlike stars are merely 6% of the population, and K dwarfs are at 13%.
The habitable zone around a red dwarf, where the temperature is suitable for liquid water to exist on the surface, is much closer to the star than the Earth is to the Sun.
For example:
For Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Sun, the HZ is estimated to be around 0.04-0.1 AU.
For TRAPPIST-1, a ultracool red dwarf star, the HZ is estimated to be around 0.02-0.05 AU.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:43:05 UTC No. 16584871
>>16583088
>backdrop
>had to account / calculate for every ounce of weight when going to the moon.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:52:05 UTC No. 16584879
No.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:31:00 UTC No. 16585318
>>16584871
They left it there.
If you go to the moon and find it... is it yours?
Can USA demand it back?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:07:15 UTC No. 16585847
>>16585318
The point is it easily weighs over 1000 lbs and yet we are supposed to believe it was considered 'essential' part of the project.... the same project where every OUNCE of weight had to be accounted / calculated for in order for it be a success. Of all the glaring red flags it was a hoax, this is the biggest one.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:12:29 UTC No. 16585851
>>16585847
The lunar rover weighed 450 lbs
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:54:37 UTC No. 16585974
>>16585851
and? do you have an actual retort ?
Weight margins were extremely tight: The Apollo spacecraft had a limited payload capacity, and EVERY OUNCE counted. Engineers had to carefully balance the weight of the spacecraft, crew, fuel, and cargo.
DETAILED WEIGHT BUDGETS were created: NASA engineers developed detailed weight budgets for each component of the spacecraft, including the structure, propulsion, life support, and communication systems.
EVERY item was carefully weighed and accounted for: From the astronauts' spacesuits to the food they ate, EVERY item was weighed and accounted for to ensure that the spacecraft remained within its weight limits.
>and yet that ridiculously NOT ESSENTIAL heavy af 450lbs jeep chassis went along for the ride because... 'reasons'
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 21:06:38 UTC No. 16586031
>>16579024
>If true, why is this never taught in our normie science classes?
It is, you just weren't paying attention.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:15:00 UTC No. 16587265
>>16586031
I got straight A's in all science classes and it was never mentioned.