sky in a Galaxy.

marrsal

Lets suppose I live in a planet that is located in the tip of a galaxy that is ubicated at the most distant point from our universe. What would I see if I look up to the sky at night(looking away from the center of my galaxy)?

Manuel.

russ_watters

I'm not sure what you mean by "the most distant point from our universe". However, if you looked away from the center of the galaxy with your naked eye, you'd see nothing. If you used a telescope, you'd see the sky was completely filled with galaxies (a la the Hubble Deep Field).

g33kski11z

Wouldn't that depend on the rotation of the planet? ..or is it that the stars "outside" of the galaxy would be so faint?

mgb_phys

In general there are no stars outside a galaxy, so the only objects you would see are other galaxies. Becuase of the distances involved other galaxies are rather faint. the nearest galaxy to us M31 is pretty close and is only just visible to the naked eye - and that would be the brightest star in your sky.

marrsal

The question goes again, what would I see in the sky at night if I happen to live in a planet that is located at the tip of Galaxy (not our milky way), but another Galaxy that happens to be at the most distant possible point away from the center of our Universe? (of course, supposing that I am not looking towards the galaxy I am ubicated, but "away" from it, since I am in the tip of that galaxy). Then question is applied with all kind of telescopes incuding radiotelescopes.

g33kski11z

That makes sense, but what if the planets rotation its self caused the planet to face the center of the galaxy then away. I've attached a quick diagram of what I'm trying to say.

The universe doesn't have a "center". That is a common misconception.

I would assume you'd be able to see the CMB and other distant galaxies as Mgb_phys stated. It would also depend on what type of telescope you are using.

Attached Thumbnails

 

turbo

These authors found that the stellar disk of NGC 300 extends to ~10 radii - much larger than previously thought, so collecting visible light with our current instruments leaves us "blind" to a lot of what is out there. Also, what you see is highly dependent on what wavelengths you observe in. We assume that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at large scales, meaning that apart from small overdensities such as clusters and chains, galaxies are smoothly distributed, and the night sky from your theoretical planet would look remarkably like the one we see from Earth.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602573

DaveC426913

Once I thought was a bad typo but twice is no accident...

What is an ubicated?



(thinks hard to himself:

'ubi'

semper ubi sub ubi = always wear underwear

ubi = wear
ubi = where?

ubicated = wherecated?
= located??

Tests:
"...a galaxy that is located at the most distant point ..."
"...not looking towards the galaxy I am located, but "away" from it..."
Pass!

Does marssal speak Latin?

)

mgb_phys

Then half the time you would have a sky with a faint milky-way (depending on the galaxy's orientation to you) and half the time an empty sky. A bit like having a full or new moon.

Even on Earth which is about 2/3 of the way to the edge the galaxy is pretty faint unless you are on a dark site so from a planet on the edge of the halo it wouldn't be half the sky full of stars.

DaveC426913

I think this may get at the crux of the OP's question. The OP seems to want to know what we would see if we looked outward from "the edge of the universe". Resolving this misunderstanding will likely resolve the OP's question.

turbo

ubicated is Italian for "located", I think

DaveC426913

So 'tis, so 'tis!

djeitnstine

yes we know, and to the OP we need a few millenia to know if our universe is even finite in size.

marrsal

Thanks for the replies. Yes, english is not my native languaje, it is spanish (sorry for the location/ubication confusion). The OP question is as some of you have said, What would I be able to see if I point all kinds of telescopes away from my galaxy that happens to be at "the edge of the universe?". I also can conceive the idea of universe without a center if we do not beleive in the big-bang. But since must of the beleivers "beleive" in the big-bang, then would have to mention "center of the universe" as a possible reference point.

marrsal.

russ_watters

No, as said above, that is a common misconception about the Big Bang. It didn't happen at one point, expanding outward, it happened everywhere. It is similar to the concept of a center of a spherical surface, but in 3d instead of 2d. The British may have constructed the longitude scale to put themselves at 0 degrees, but that doesn't make them the central point on earth's surface.

The fact that the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field show that the sky is literally filled with galaxies regardless of where we look supports the Big Bang theory, it does not refute it.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2004/07/

marrsal

Are you saying that because there is no center, then there is no "edge", therefore I can never point with an hypothetical telescope from an hypothetical planet looking away from an hypothetical galaxy located (not ubicated) at the "edge" of our universe? The explanation of the 3D spherical surface was not very convincing to apply in to our universe and big-bang theory.

marrsal.

russ_watters

Convincing or not, that's how it works. It's something you'll just need to accept. Though the evidence that comes with it really should help it make more sense.