Do you realize that from most of the universe, the "sky" would appear star-less...?

Question

The only reason we see stars with our naked eye from earth is that we are viewing them from within a galaxy (the Milky Way).

Answer 1

It depends on what you consider the boundaries of the universe, you would still see "stars". Ligh from distant galaxies would be easier to see, since there would be less light pollution from nearby stars.

Answer 2

It is amazing when you think about it. Since most of the universe is relatively empty space between galaxies, anyone viewing the "sky" with their naked eyes would possibly see only the dim splotches of distant galaxies, much as we see the Andromeda galaxy in our sky. From a couple million light years away, our Milky Way wouldn't even be that bright. Looking at all the pictures we have using giant telescopes and ccd technology, it's hard to believe that all our eyes would see is darkness. BUT.....since I'm here, not "somewhere out there" in the gaps between galaxies, I'm going to continue to enjoy what I can see.

Answer 3

However, the probability that an observer would be located in such a 'star-less' expanse is very low.

Intergalactic space is comparatively devoid of matter, so that the existence of rogue intergalactic planets where life would have evolved has an extremely low probability.


Intergalactic travel requires very long time periods or some trick (that we have yet to discover) to avoid the inevitable speed limit. An observer on an intergalactic voyage would either be in a state of suspension OR be involved in a trip that is not much different than a terrestrial tans-oceanic cruise, where one loses sight of land for a few days at a time.

So, yes, there are large volumes of 'space' from which the sky would be star-less; however, there would very likely not be any observers to witness such a lackluster firmament.

This gives us an equivalent to the philosophical question about the tree in the forest making (or not making) noise.

Answer 4

Not true. All stars reside within other galaxies. If there are planets around them and intelligent beings looking up they would see the stars in their own galaxy. The intergalactic void would be a cold and frightening place but there are no "skies" there as there are no planets. But the sky would be littered with galaxies anyway. Also our sky IS pretty starless compared to other regions of our galaxy. We are on the outskirts where star denisty is low. Imagine what the sky would look like in an open starcluster, like the Pleiades, or nearer the galactic centre.

Answer 5

I was thinking that Raymond was right, but now I have second thoughts. It is possible that as many as a third of all stars are intergalactic. Such stars are extremely difficult to detect with current techniques but (1) we know of a few examples, directly observed and (2) what we know of galaxy formation suggests that such stars could be numerous. There is no reason to believe such stars would have many fewer planet than those in galaxies (although these stellar systems would, on average, be lower in heavy elements than systems within galaxies), and there is nothing to say that such systems could not evolve life. In fact, the hypothetical inhabitants of such systems would be safer from nearby supernovae and comet collisions than we are. They have much less chance of eventual interstellar travel, however.

Answer 6

If you are anywhere inside the Universe, ever if you are in the region between galaxies, you would still see points of light. They might not be stars themselves but instead they would be entire galaxies. So there is no way for the sky to appear star-less

Answer 7

initially you will possibly desire to calm your self slightly and supply up hating plenty! merely ask the question with out having so offensive! Now to respond to your question. it is basically a philosophical subject, no longer a scientific one. So no reason to get mad. each and every thing it is previous the observable universe can't available result us, attain us or impact us in any way. such numerous human beings say its even beside the point to think of or communicate approximately because of the fact we are able to in no way understand. further to the question of what grew to become into earlier the great bang. there is not any actual way of understanding for this reason making this a non scientific subject. Now, you are able to unlike this one, however the universe is increasing quicker then the fee of light. And rushing up as properly, it is brought about via what's concept to be dark skill (which has no longer been experimentally shown). so as time is going on, we are able to be sure much less and much less of the universe. Now you will possibly desire to understand, that this does not mean, that gadgets are easily moving quicker then the fee of light by area-time and as a result are no longer violating the thought of relativity. that's area it is increasing quicker then the fee of light. So as an example, we would desire to in no way see the part or boundary

Answer 8

The only time you would see a star in another galaxy is if a super Nova occurred while you were watching it.
No telescope can resolve a star in another galaxy.

Answer 9

No. There are galaxies in it..
So, you can observe atleast one galaxy from any one position....

You can observe big or small, spiral or elliptical galaxies in less or more proportion..

Answer 10

Yes we are in a galaxy. But most galaxies are extremely bright, and there are millions of them, so you would see them instead.