Night Sky Views from the Edge of a Distant Galaxy | Manuel's Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter marrsal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy Sky
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the hypothetical night sky views from a planet located at the edge of a distant galaxy, particularly when looking away from the galaxy's center. Participants consider various aspects of visibility, including the presence of other galaxies, the effects of the planet's rotation, and the implications of the universe's structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Manuel poses a question about what one would see in the night sky from a planet at the edge of a distant galaxy, looking away from its center.
  • Some participants suggest that looking away from the center would yield a view filled with other galaxies, particularly when using telescopes, while others argue that the visibility of these galaxies would depend on their faintness and distance.
  • There is a discussion about the rotation of the planet affecting what is visible in the sky, with some suggesting that it could lead to varying views of the galaxy and other celestial objects.
  • One participant emphasizes that there are generally no stars outside of galaxies, which would limit the visible objects to other galaxies, which are faint due to vast distances.
  • Another participant clarifies that the universe does not have a center, challenging the notion of looking outward from an "edge" of the universe.
  • Some participants express confusion about the terminology used, particularly the word "ubicated," and engage in a light-hearted discussion about its meaning.
  • There are references to the Big Bang theory and its implications for the structure of the universe, with some participants asserting that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at large scales.
  • One participant questions the analogy of a balloon used to explain the universe's expansion, indicating that they find it unconvincing.
  • Several participants share links to external resources and evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, while others express skepticism about the interpretations of such evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the visibility of celestial objects from the hypothetical planet, and there are competing views regarding the implications of the universe's structure and the Big Bang theory. The discussion remains unresolved on several key points, particularly concerning the nature of the universe's center and edge.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of terms like "edge of the universe" and the assumptions underlying the discussion about visibility and the structure of the universe. The conversation also reflects varying levels of understanding regarding cosmological concepts.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
You've used a good analogy but come to the exact wrong conclusion.
Question: what common sense (i.e previous experiences) do you have about universes that you have any common sense about how they "should" work?...

Common sense has no place in trying to discover the unknown. Throw away your preconceptions and examine the facts. Let the universe tell you how it is built, not the other way around.


Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
marrsal said:
Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
I agree 100%. In neurophysiology, cold, hard facts are a fair bit harder to come by than in physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K