#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stars??
I was outside looking up at the night sky and I was wondering how many stars
there were that I was looking at that weren't actually there. Does anyone know? Since it takes millions of years for their light to reach us, is it possible that we're looking at stars that aren't even there? If anyone could post a reply to this with something other than spam or cult proselytizing that'd be great. Thank you all for your time. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message m... I was outside looking up at the night sky and I was wondering how many stars there were that I was looking at that weren't actually there. Does anyone know? Since it takes millions of years for their light to reach us, is it possible that we're looking at stars that aren't even there? If anyone could post a reply to this with something other than spam or cult proselytizing that'd be great. Thank you all for your time. Hi Jerry - unfortunately the question sounds like you're trolling - even for a person who hasn't posted to this newsgroup. In my completely uninformed state, I would venture a guess is that there is likely an infinite number of stars we can't see, some of whose light hasn't reached us yet, or some that are just so faint the light is imperceptible with current telescopes of other equipment. Maybe what you're asking is, if a new star ignited today, a million light years from here, then yes, we wouldn't be able to see it in the night sky for a million years. Conversely, if an existing star the same distance blew out, we could see it for a million years before it goes out. What always gets me is, they're all up they're moving so really, all the star are actually in different positions than we see in the sky, some more drastic than others depending on the distance. I hope that answers your question and I hope some posters with a lot more technical knowledge can respond. I'm hoping, since I'm about to ask a question, someone will be as kind. Peace, Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Latham" wrote in message
news:4ohId.13481$Os6.687@trnddc08... wrote in message m... I was outside looking up at the night sky and I was wondering how many stars there were that I was looking at that weren't actually there. Does anyone know? Since it takes millions of years for their light to reach us, is it possible that we're looking at stars that aren't even there? If anyone could post a reply to this with something other than spam or cult proselytizing that'd be great. Thank you all for your time. Hi Jerry - unfortunately the question sounds like you're trolling - even for a person who hasn't posted to this newsgroup. In my completely uninformed state, I would venture a guess is that there is likely an infinite number of stars we can't see, some of whose light hasn't reached us yet, or some that are just so faint the light is imperceptible with current telescopes of other equipment. Maybe what you're asking is, if a new star ignited today, a million light years from here, then yes, we wouldn't be able to see it in the night sky for a million years. Conversely, if an existing star the same distance blew out, we could see it for a million years before it goes out. What always gets me is, they're all up they're moving so really, all the star are actually in different positions than we see in the sky, some more drastic than others depending on the distance. I hope that answers your question and I hope some posters with a lot more technical knowledge can respond. I'm hoping, since I'm about to ask a question, someone will be as kind. Peace, Steve I don't think he was trolling at all, but only asking what you speculated in your "Conversely" statement, except on an "as of now" basis. That is, of all the stars that appear "up there", how many (say via an approximate percentage) are now extinguished. Unfortunately, I can't answer it either, but would guess it's quite low, like 1 - 3%(?). This guess (SWAG?) is just based on the life span of stars. Regards, Brett. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 5 | August 10th 03 10:58 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 21st 03 06:10 PM |
Stars rich in heavy metals tend to harbor planets, astronomers report(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 21st 03 05:45 PM |