3 ms·
That's of course true, but I think it's a pretty big part of the context that "the object" is a galaxy, i.e. a collection of approximately 1 trillion (1,000,000
by unwind 7y ago
That's of course true, but I think it's a pretty big part of the context that "the object" is a galaxy, i.e. a collection of approximately 1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) stars.
It's more or less obvious that such an object cannot be very close, and thus it's apparent size in our sky really does convey something about its size.
That was my interpretation, at least.
- robbrown451 7y agoIf you could see the galaxy as brightly as in the photos, there's nothing to indicate its size, at least not directly. You are saying it can't be close because it has a trillion stars, and we know stars are big, therefore it is big, therefore it must be far away, and then back to therefore it is big. Isn't that kind of circular? I could imagine ancient people seeing a galaxy that size (if it was bright enough), and guessing it was a few hundred miles away and under a hundred miles across.