4 ms·

I don't know of anything more awesome (in the literal sense of the word) than these photos. It makes my wonder just how densely packed (ignoring variation in di

I don't know of anything more awesome (in the literal sense of the word) than these photos. It makes my wonder just how densely packed (ignoring variation in distance) the area is. What will we see when we start looking between those dark spots? What if there's literally something in every direction...

gizmo686 6y ago
Before our modern understanding of cosmology, a serious question astromers asked is "why is the night sky dark". If there truly were stars/galaxies in every direction you would expect the entire night sky to be bright, as no matter which way you looked you would see a star; and the combined light of all of those stars should illuminate the sky. As it turns out, empty space isn't dark, but rather illuminated by the cosmic microwave background. This suggests that the space between us and this boundary in space from when photons started to be able to move mostly freely is mostly empty. Otherwise this backround would either be over-shadowed by stars, or obscured by whatever stuff was obscuring said stars. Of course, it is important to keep in mind the speed of light implications.
- philiplu 6y ago
  For more on this, see Olbers’ paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
  - drran 6y ago
    But, Hubble demonstrates that every line of sight is actually ends on surface of a star or an object, so what is your point?
    - gizmo686 6y ago
      When did Hubble demonstrate that? What the experiment in the article showed is that seemingly empty regions contained stars. If you want to claim that every 1 dimensional line of sight ends on an object, then you need to explain how the cosmic microwave background manages to reach us. Unless, of course, you count quark-gluon plasma as an object; in which case we do pretty much hit a wall in every direction.
      - drran 6y ago
        It looks like your naked sight is much better than Hubble telescope. Congratulations!
        cambalache 6y ago
        You should read a basic Astronomy book and dont make a fool of yourself here
        drran 6y ago
        You mean, I should _write_ a book, right?
- teh_klev 6y ago
  See also Olber's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

gizmo686 6y ago

Before our modern understanding of cosmology, a serious question astromers asked is "why is the night sky dark". If there truly were stars/galaxies in every direction you would expect the entire night sky to be bright, as no matter which way you looked you would see a star; and the combined light of all of those stars should illuminate the sky. As it turns out, empty space isn't dark, but rather illuminated by the cosmic microwave background. This suggests that the space between us and this boundary in space from when photons started to be able to move mostly freely is mostly empty. Otherwise this backround would either be over-shadowed by stars, or obscured by whatever stuff was obscuring said stars. Of course, it is important to keep in mind the speed of light implications.

philiplu 6y ago
For more on this, see Olbers’ paradox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
- drran 6y ago
  But, Hubble demonstrates that every line of sight is actually ends on surface of a star or an object, so what is your point?
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    When did Hubble demonstrate that? What the experiment in the article showed is that seemingly empty regions contained stars. If you want to claim that every 1 dimensional line of sight ends on an object, then you need to explain how the cosmic microwave background manages to reach us. Unless, of course, you count quark-gluon plasma as an object; in which case we do pretty much hit a wall in every direction.
    - drran 6y ago
      It looks like your naked sight is much better than Hubble telescope. Congratulations!
      - cambalache 6y ago
        You should read a basic Astronomy book and dont make a fool of yourself here
        drran 6y ago
        You mean, I should _write_ a book, right?
teh_klev 6y ago
See also Olber's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox