I assume this is being hugged to death? 504 Gateway Time-out The server didn't respond in time.
HN often Slashdots stuff.
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
81–90 of 129 posts
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#82Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In cosmic scales of many billions of years, observers on every galaxy will eventually think that their galaxy is the only one that has ever existed. Unless of course some of them manage to find ways to preserve information and keep records over those billions of years. The lost galaxies will be known from that.
But the information would still be forever locked away in its own galactic island. Even transmitting at the speed of light, the information could never reach any other galaxy. So no, in this far future, a galaxy would only be able to know itself.
We have records of other galaxies right now. Assuming we manage to preserve those and humanity over these kinds of time scales, our descendants would be able to access those records and learn that other galaxies once existed that are beyond their cosmic horizon now.
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#84Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#85Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#86I really find hard to believe how people can say "well, maybe it's not that easy to have other forms of life in the Universe". I mean, we have a cluster with thousands of galaxies, which make it for millions of stars, 240 MILLION light years away. Which means that there is a 240 million years window in which we are basically blind. Any communication from there will never reach the human race, most probably. Philosophically we can say there is no life there as we are concerned, because we will never be able to see any proof of it, but that doesn't mean that there was anyway, or there currently is, and maybe in more than one planet.
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#87So an orphan star is one that's been ejected from its galaxy.
If one of those stars had a planet with something capable of "gazing up at the night sky", does that mean their sky would be empty compared to our own?
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#88I really find hard to believe how people can say "well, maybe it's not that easy to have other forms of life in the Universe". I mean, we have a cluster with thousands of galaxies, which make it for millions of stars, 240 MILLION light years away. Which means that there is a 240 million years window in which we are basically blind. Any communication from there will never reach the human race, most probably. Philosoph…
"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right?"
-- Contact (1997)
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#89High resolution view: https://sky.esa.int/esasky/?target=49.6809329688%2041.614370...
Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars
#90So an orphan star is one that's been ejected from its galaxy. If one of those stars had a planet with something capable of "gazing up at the night sky", does that mean their sky would be empty compared to our own?
No, their night sky would be more or less like our own. There would be other stars and galaxies visible, it's just that this planet (along with the other planets of this orphan star) would be outside of a galaxy and they would be travelling the universe in the "void" between galaxies.
Being outside a galaxy doesn't mean that you have a black night sky, it just means that you're a little bit further away from other stars and you're moving in the interstellar medium.