5 ms·

An added bonus of a dark sky is that with a good pair of eyes (and more democratically, with a set of binoculars) you can see all sort of clusters, nebulae, Jup

An added bonus of a dark sky is that with a good pair of eyes (and more democratically, with a set of binoculars) you can see all sort of clusters, nebulae, Jupiter's moons and e.g., Andromeda. While not as breathtaking as the panoramic view of a truly dark sky, experiencing this "micro-structure" is also a mind-expanding experience: The sky is no longer a set of random point sources. Its an organic "thing" enclosing other "things".

marssaxman 3y ago
I once got to watch the sunset from the peak of Mauna Kea. After descending to a less stressful altitude, we spent some time stargazing. I've never seen the sky like that before, or since; it felt like you could see the depth in the galaxy. I was no longer looking up at the dome of the sky, studded with stars; I was looking out, from the side of a planet, into the wide open space of the universe.
- invalidptr 3y ago
  I had the same experience at around 10,000 ft in the cascades. Once you're above the thickest part of the atmosphere, a whole new dimension opens up in the sky. Everywhere you look, in the space between the stars, there are more stars, infinitely receding to the edge of the universe. The sky starts to look more like a fractal than a few points of light scattered around.
  - bookofjoe 3y ago
    At 18,000 feet altitude on the Thorong La Pass in the Nepali Himalayas in 1984, there were more stars than darkness in between them.
    - adriand 3y ago
      I have never been at that altitude but I had a similar experience in the Sahara a few years ago. My experience was enhanced with a little bit of Moroccan hashish. I laid on a dune and gazed at the sky and the heavens were blazing with light. I felt like I was falling into the stars. It was unforgettable. A clear sky at night is the farthest thing from dark!
- enobrev 3y ago
  I had planned a trip to the Haleakala Crater in Maui for the highly-recommended sunrise, and our airBnb turned out to have a pretty significant ant problem, so we ended up going a few hours early. I don't know why anyone would even mention the sunrise considering how incredible that night sky was. The experience was similar to seeing the grand canyon: too big, beautiful, and intricate for my brain to take it all in. It was absolutely breathtaking. Also, absurdly cold (we were well prepared and it was still not enough) The sunrise was fine. Very pretty, to be sure. But the main event was that night sky, for which I would have shown up a few hours earlier than I did had I known about it.
  - stevage 3y ago
    Agreed with you on this. I have never yet seen a sunrise that was worth the effort. But a good night sky is incredible. My best was at about 3500m in Peru, in the wee hours after fleeing my tent to be sick. Absolutely mind blowing to see the whole milky way like that.
  - windthrown 3y ago
    I completely agree with your overall point about the fantastic night sky but it should be no surprise that people suggest sunrise, as the Hawaiian Haleakala literally translates to "house of the sun".
    - enobrev 3y ago
      I didn't know that, thanks. Also, I don't think it's _not_ worth going up there for the sunrise. It is. It's beautiful, and probably worth the drive. I mostly just think it's weird that nobody even _mentions_ the transcendent night sky you might happen upon during a new moon or moonless part of the night.
- Yhippa 3y ago
  It sounds like to get these experiences I'm going to have to go far out of my way and pay a lot of money. Our ancient ancestors got it for free, and I wonder if they thought anything of it.
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    > Our ancient ancestors got it for free, and I wonder if they thought anything of it. Not sure what they thought of it, but I think it's telling how aware they were of the night sky as an active environment, e.g. the movements of the planets, and the relationships between events in the sky and our seasons (even though the their explanatory models were wrong). On a clear night - especially in winter - before the invention of fire, it's all you'd be aware of. No wonder that they made patterns (constellations) of the brighter stars.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    We probably owe the roots of all science (and thus technology) to the clear dark sky observations of ancient ancestors. Astronomical observatories were common in all early civilizations and it there where some of the roots of mathematical thinking begin (the other being credit accounting tools :-) Astronomical observations are in a sense simpler and cleaner (and until the invention of accurate timepieces, compasses etc.) also of extreme practical use. The reason is likely that our normal down-to-Earth environment is too complex and chaotic to be parsed. Observation of nearby processes gets things wrong because of overlapping effects. E.g. Aristotle thought that the natural state is for things to stop moving when they stop being pushed by a force. This is only the case because down here friction is dominant. > have to go far out of my way and pay a lot of money it should not be like this. A lot of light pollution is due to just not giving a damn about side-effects.
    - conductr 3y ago
      I’ve considered whether the human concept of religion is possibly rooted in debates as to whether other things are out there. Because once you’ve had that conscious thought I think it’s a short hop to making up stories about who/what it is that could be living out there. Time passes and it becomes indoctrination for many, and on the mind for most at times of their life even if just out of curiosity. Definitely not on a hill over this but it’s just been a thought I’ve wrestled with at some point. I’m sure it’s not even original at all.
divbzero 3y ago
I’ve seen Jupiter’s moons using binoculars in the middle of the city without a dark sky. TIL it’s possible in some cases to spot them by naked eye.
schoen 3y ago
> experiencing this "micro-structure" is also a mind-expanding experience: The sky is no longer a set of random point sources. Its an organic "thing" enclosing other "things". Galileo was immediately astonished by this when he made his first telescope and instantly saw the complexity of things up in the sky. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.html#FNanchor_3 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.ht...
dotancohen 3y ago
Jupiter's moons? Have you actually seen them? I think that I saw them a few years ago, as a line instead of as distinct dots. I even asked on Stack Exchange at the time: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-poss...

marssaxman 3y ago

I once got to watch the sunset from the peak of Mauna Kea. After descending to a less stressful altitude, we spent some time stargazing. I've never seen the sky like that before, or since; it felt like you could see the depth in the galaxy. I was no longer looking up at the dome of the sky, studded with stars; I was looking out, from the side of a planet, into the wide open space of the universe.

invalidptr 3y ago
I had the same experience at around 10,000 ft in the cascades. Once you're above the thickest part of the atmosphere, a whole new dimension opens up in the sky. Everywhere you look, in the space between the stars, there are more stars, infinitely receding to the edge of the universe. The sky starts to look more like a fractal than a few points of light scattered around.
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  At 18,000 feet altitude on the Thorong La Pass in the Nepali Himalayas in 1984, there were more stars than darkness in between them.
  - adriand 3y ago
    I have never been at that altitude but I had a similar experience in the Sahara a few years ago. My experience was enhanced with a little bit of Moroccan hashish. I laid on a dune and gazed at the sky and the heavens were blazing with light. I felt like I was falling into the stars. It was unforgettable. A clear sky at night is the farthest thing from dark!
enobrev 3y ago
I had planned a trip to the Haleakala Crater in Maui for the highly-recommended sunrise, and our airBnb turned out to have a pretty significant ant problem, so we ended up going a few hours early. I don't know why anyone would even mention the sunrise considering how incredible that night sky was. The experience was similar to seeing the grand canyon: too big, beautiful, and intricate for my brain to take it all in. It was absolutely breathtaking. Also, absurdly cold (we were well prepared and it was still not enough) The sunrise was fine. Very pretty, to be sure. But the main event was that night sky, for which I would have shown up a few hours earlier than I did had I known about it.
- stevage 3y ago
  Agreed with you on this. I have never yet seen a sunrise that was worth the effort. But a good night sky is incredible. My best was at about 3500m in Peru, in the wee hours after fleeing my tent to be sick. Absolutely mind blowing to see the whole milky way like that.
- windthrown 3y ago
  I completely agree with your overall point about the fantastic night sky but it should be no surprise that people suggest sunrise, as the Hawaiian Haleakala literally translates to "house of the sun".
  - enobrev 3y ago
    I didn't know that, thanks. Also, I don't think it's _not_ worth going up there for the sunrise. It is. It's beautiful, and probably worth the drive. I mostly just think it's weird that nobody even _mentions_ the transcendent night sky you might happen upon during a new moon or moonless part of the night.
Yhippa 3y ago
It sounds like to get these experiences I'm going to have to go far out of my way and pay a lot of money. Our ancient ancestors got it for free, and I wonder if they thought anything of it.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > Our ancient ancestors got it for free, and I wonder if they thought anything of it. Not sure what they thought of it, but I think it's telling how aware they were of the night sky as an active environment, e.g. the movements of the planets, and the relationships between events in the sky and our seasons (even though the their explanatory models were wrong). On a clear night - especially in winter - before the invention of fire, it's all you'd be aware of. No wonder that they made patterns (constellations) of the brighter stars.
- nologic01 3y ago
  We probably owe the roots of all science (and thus technology) to the clear dark sky observations of ancient ancestors. Astronomical observatories were common in all early civilizations and it there where some of the roots of mathematical thinking begin (the other being credit accounting tools :-) Astronomical observations are in a sense simpler and cleaner (and until the invention of accurate timepieces, compasses etc.) also of extreme practical use. The reason is likely that our normal down-to-Earth environment is too complex and chaotic to be parsed. Observation of nearby processes gets things wrong because of overlapping effects. E.g. Aristotle thought that the natural state is for things to stop moving when they stop being pushed by a force. This is only the case because down here friction is dominant. > have to go far out of my way and pay a lot of money it should not be like this. A lot of light pollution is due to just not giving a damn about side-effects.
  - conductr 3y ago
    I’ve considered whether the human concept of religion is possibly rooted in debates as to whether other things are out there. Because once you’ve had that conscious thought I think it’s a short hop to making up stories about who/what it is that could be living out there. Time passes and it becomes indoctrination for many, and on the mind for most at times of their life even if just out of curiosity. Definitely not on a hill over this but it’s just been a thought I’ve wrestled with at some point. I’m sure it’s not even original at all.

divbzero 3y ago

I’ve seen Jupiter’s moons using binoculars in the middle of the city without a dark sky. TIL it’s possible in some cases to spot them by naked eye.

schoen 3y ago

> experiencing this "micro-structure" is also a mind-expanding experience: The sky is no longer a set of random point sources. Its an organic "thing" enclosing other "things". Galileo was immediately astonished by this when he made his first telescope and instantly saw the complexity of things up in the sky. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.html#FNanchor_3 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46036/pg46036-images.ht...

dotancohen 3y ago

Jupiter's moons? Have you actually seen them? I think that I saw them a few years ago, as a line instead of as distinct dots. I even asked on Stack Exchange at the time: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-possible-that-i-just-saw-jupiters-moons https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26664/is-it-poss...