5 ms·

The tone of the article is a bit confusing - I suppose it is written by someone who has a lot of experience looking up and a lot of time spent seeing lots of st

The tone of the article is a bit confusing - I suppose it is written by someone who has a lot of experience looking up and a lot of time spent seeing lots of stars. But as a life-long city dweller with some rural experience, I would have guessed a max of 3,000 or so stars visible when there is no light pollution. They call the number 9,000 "unimpressive" but to me, the idea that my eyes could probably resolve about 9,000 stars at night is incredibly impressive. Regardless, most of humanity sees more like 10 or 200, which is super sad and I would be interested in knowing if there are studies (or any possible way to know) what kind of effect that might have on a population - not being able to see the night sky well, or at all. Edit: At night at one spot, there 4,500 visible, not 9,000 - but then we have an odd tagline, again showing the odd choice of words by the author. > Ten thousand stars bedazzle the eye on a dark night. Not really? Just 4,500 if you live in the middle of no light pollution.

alphydan 8y ago
Perhaps it's the contrast with the idea that the universe is vast. Looking up at the sky gives us a sense of awe. But why? Is it because we "see countless stars"? Apparently not. 9000 is a pretty small number compared with the grains in a fistful of sand, or a cup of rice. So why does looking at the starts give this sense of vastness? It's possible that it's an acquired mode of thought. Perhaps to ancient people, the 88 constellations (and approx 700 familiar stars in constellations) were ... just that, a few familiar dots on the celestial vault. I somehow imagined I could see tens of thousands ... but had never really bothered to count.
- cryptoz 8y ago
  Yes, that makes sense. To me, the vastness comes from knowing how many stars are in the dark 'gaps' I can't see with my eyes. And knowing how many of the visible stars themselves have planets. We're getting the to point of exoplanet discovery where you can find a star with your eyes, know which one it is, and check to see how many planets orbit it. So when I look up at the night sky, I can almost see all the planets orbit all the stars up there, and all the moons around all those planets - and it is vast. Even just what you can see and imagine with your own eyes and head, it's vast. No need for looking through a telescope to get the sense of vastness - but perhaps you do need the knowledge that stuff is up there - even if you can't see it. okay, a showerthought: The ancients treated the stars and planets as Gods. And some of them have the same characteristics - they exist for seemingly eternity, or at least billions of years. They shine light and provide what is necessary for life to start, and for it to go on. They are always up there, 'above', 'watching' as it were (they send rays of light down to the planets, where it is partially absorbed and partially bounced back). And one day, when the Sun goes out, it will end the universe that exists on Earth. Based on what we know now, the ancients seemed to get a lot right in the actual nature of the stars.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    > We're getting the to point of exoplanet discovery where you can find a star with your eyes, know which one it is, and check to see how many planets orbit it. Fomalhaut is a great example. Occasionally I'll take people out for sky tours, and when Fomalhaut is visible I mention to them that not only is that star extraordinarily close (25 ly), but that it has planets that we've actually imaged in photographs!
- yosito 8y ago
  If it was an acquired thought, it was acquired more than a few thousand years ago. The Bible mentioned uncountable stars; "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore".
  - alphydan 8y ago
    Not sure the bible is a good source for astronomy. But your quote does not say anything about "uncountable stars". I don't know the context but it could simply be read as: > Your fields will produce lots of seeds, as many as stars (a few thousand) ... or as many as grains of sand (millions). Nowhere does it say those numbers are equal. Or maybe it means: > You'll get lots of children (seeds?), as many as stars (9000), or as many as grains of sand (millions, eventually). Is there an actual quote that says there are uncountable stars?
    - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
      Context and culture suggest the latter interpretation. It's definitely talking about descendants, not agriculture, and it's definitely using "as many as the stars" in a fashion that suggests a lot more than 9000. Some clearer quotes: > Deuteronomy 10:22: Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven. Shortly before that quote was written, a census numbered the men at around 600,000, for a total population of 1.5-2.5 million. And there's also the New Testament interpretation of the same events: > Hebrews 11:12: Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
      - alphydan 8y ago
        Again. That's the whole point of science. Leaving interpretations out. Neither you nor anybody here can know if the author meant "There are around 600,000 stars" or "There are around 5,000 stars". Also, exactly who tracked the geneaology to make sure those 600,000 men were direct descendants of the 70 people? Is that sentence possibly false? Was the author aware of the census? etc, etc. I don't think there is any point discussing it when there are actual star catalogues produced as early as 1800 BC by early astronomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomical_maps,_catalogs,_and_surveys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomical_maps,...
sp332 8y ago
When you're looking into the core of the milky way, it feels like seeing tens of thousands crammed in there. As for the headline, if you travel all over the world and look at every visible star, you'll only ever see 9,096 total.
- peter303 8y ago
  You had to wait until goodvtelescope resolve the streak of the Mily Way was made of stars. Ditto that some the smudges in the sky were galaxies made of stars. That was one ofvEdwin Hubble's great discoveries.
  - Retric 8y ago
    This may be part of the confusion there are ~9 galaxies visible to the naked eye and ~13 nebula, but they don't count as a star. Similarly binary stars should only count if you can't see both stars. Remove all the stuff that's not individual stars and there are significantly fewer points remaining.
Someone 8y ago
”I would be interested in knowing if there are studies (or any possible way to know) what kind of effect that might have on a population - not being able to see the night sky well, or at all.” In fiction, there’s the classical “Nightfall” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov_novelette_and_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov_novelette_an...) about what it might mean if the stars would appear one night in a thousand years.
megy 8y ago
Except we know there are trillions of stars out there. So 9,000 seems small.

alphydan 8y ago

Perhaps it's the contrast with the idea that the universe is vast. Looking up at the sky gives us a sense of awe. But why? Is it because we "see countless stars"? Apparently not. 9000 is a pretty small number compared with the grains in a fistful of sand, or a cup of rice. So why does looking at the starts give this sense of vastness? It's possible that it's an acquired mode of thought. Perhaps to ancient people, the 88 constellations (and approx 700 familiar stars in constellations) were ... just that, a few familiar dots on the celestial vault. I somehow imagined I could see tens of thousands ... but had never really bothered to count.

cryptoz 8y ago
Yes, that makes sense. To me, the vastness comes from knowing how many stars are in the dark 'gaps' I can't see with my eyes. And knowing how many of the visible stars themselves have planets. We're getting the to point of exoplanet discovery where you can find a star with your eyes, know which one it is, and check to see how many planets orbit it. So when I look up at the night sky, I can almost see all the planets orbit all the stars up there, and all the moons around all those planets - and it is vast. Even just what you can see and imagine with your own eyes and head, it's vast. No need for looking through a telescope to get the sense of vastness - but perhaps you do need the knowledge that stuff is up there - even if you can't see it. okay, a showerthought: The ancients treated the stars and planets as Gods. And some of them have the same characteristics - they exist for seemingly eternity, or at least billions of years. They shine light and provide what is necessary for life to start, and for it to go on. They are always up there, 'above', 'watching' as it were (they send rays of light down to the planets, where it is partially absorbed and partially bounced back). And one day, when the Sun goes out, it will end the universe that exists on Earth. Based on what we know now, the ancients seemed to get a lot right in the actual nature of the stars.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  > We're getting the to point of exoplanet discovery where you can find a star with your eyes, know which one it is, and check to see how many planets orbit it. Fomalhaut is a great example. Occasionally I'll take people out for sky tours, and when Fomalhaut is visible I mention to them that not only is that star extraordinarily close (25 ly), but that it has planets that we've actually imaged in photographs!
yosito 8y ago
If it was an acquired thought, it was acquired more than a few thousand years ago. The Bible mentioned uncountable stars; "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore".
- alphydan 8y ago
  Not sure the bible is a good source for astronomy. But your quote does not say anything about "uncountable stars". I don't know the context but it could simply be read as: > Your fields will produce lots of seeds, as many as stars (a few thousand) ... or as many as grains of sand (millions). Nowhere does it say those numbers are equal. Or maybe it means: > You'll get lots of children (seeds?), as many as stars (9000), or as many as grains of sand (millions, eventually). Is there an actual quote that says there are uncountable stars?
  - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
    Context and culture suggest the latter interpretation. It's definitely talking about descendants, not agriculture, and it's definitely using "as many as the stars" in a fashion that suggests a lot more than 9000. Some clearer quotes: > Deuteronomy 10:22: Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven. Shortly before that quote was written, a census numbered the men at around 600,000, for a total population of 1.5-2.5 million. And there's also the New Testament interpretation of the same events: > Hebrews 11:12: Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
    - alphydan 8y ago
      Again. That's the whole point of science. Leaving interpretations out. Neither you nor anybody here can know if the author meant "There are around 600,000 stars" or "There are around 5,000 stars". Also, exactly who tracked the geneaology to make sure those 600,000 men were direct descendants of the 70 people? Is that sentence possibly false? Was the author aware of the census? etc, etc. I don't think there is any point discussing it when there are actual star catalogues produced as early as 1800 BC by early astronomers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomical_maps,_catalogs,_and_surveys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomical_maps,...

sp332 8y ago

When you're looking into the core of the milky way, it feels like seeing tens of thousands crammed in there. As for the headline, if you travel all over the world and look at every visible star, you'll only ever see 9,096 total.

peter303 8y ago
You had to wait until goodvtelescope resolve the streak of the Mily Way was made of stars. Ditto that some the smudges in the sky were galaxies made of stars. That was one ofvEdwin Hubble's great discoveries.
- Retric 8y ago
  This may be part of the confusion there are ~9 galaxies visible to the naked eye and ~13 nebula, but they don't count as a star. Similarly binary stars should only count if you can't see both stars. Remove all the stuff that's not individual stars and there are significantly fewer points remaining.

Someone 8y ago

”I would be interested in knowing if there are studies (or any possible way to know) what kind of effect that might have on a population - not being able to see the night sky well, or at all.” In fiction, there’s the classical “Nightfall” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov_novelette_and_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(Asimov_novelette_an...) about what it might mean if the stars would appear one night in a thousand years.

megy 8y ago

Except we know there are trillions of stars out there. So 9,000 seems small.