4 ms·

So 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 t

So 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?

NKosmatos 2y ago
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.
- klyrs 2y ago
  We can see the Milky Way in clear conditions; with light pollution we can only see the brightest stars. Perhaps an orphan star would have a darker sky, without a clear view of a galactic superstructure without using a telescope?
- floatrock 2y ago
  So my understanding is most of the stars that fill our sky are stars inside our milky way and nearby. "The Milky Way" smudge we can see in a dark sky is the collective effort of all the far-off milky way stars. I assume some of the 'stars' we can see with the naked eye are actually galaxies, but I assume that's a small percentage. Our closest galaxy, Andromeda, appears barely as a smudge to the naked eye. I guess my question is more about how far away from their home galaxies are these orphan stars, expressed as a percentage of a hypothetical planet's sky-cover. eg we see the milky way as a band because we're inside the galactic plane... would these orphan planets see their home galaxy as a fainter band because they've been ejected still in the galactic plane? Would they see part of the sky covered and part of the sky blank because they're outside their home galactic plane? Are they still close enough to their home galaxy that they're still surrounded by enough stars to fill the sky, or would the star density in their skies be seasonal? I think it would be fun to speculate on different hypothetical cultural evolutions of different kinds of night sky configurations, like "winter is when our planet's night sees our home galaxy, so winter is when the gods send their nightlumination down on us" etc.
- dwaltrip 2y ago
  I don’t think this is correct. Most of the stars we see in the night sky are close by in our neighborhood of the Milky Way. Being in the void between galaxies, there wouldn’t be many neighboring stars close to the orphan stars. This would make their night sky much emptier to the human eye.
  - NKosmatos 2y ago
    For sure their sky would be a lot lot emptier, but I don't think it would be pitch black.

NKosmatos 2y ago

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.

klyrs 2y ago
We can see the Milky Way in clear conditions; with light pollution we can only see the brightest stars. Perhaps an orphan star would have a darker sky, without a clear view of a galactic superstructure without using a telescope?
floatrock 2y ago
So my understanding is most of the stars that fill our sky are stars inside our milky way and nearby. "The Milky Way" smudge we can see in a dark sky is the collective effort of all the far-off milky way stars. I assume some of the 'stars' we can see with the naked eye are actually galaxies, but I assume that's a small percentage. Our closest galaxy, Andromeda, appears barely as a smudge to the naked eye. I guess my question is more about how far away from their home galaxies are these orphan stars, expressed as a percentage of a hypothetical planet's sky-cover. eg we see the milky way as a band because we're inside the galactic plane... would these orphan planets see their home galaxy as a fainter band because they've been ejected still in the galactic plane? Would they see part of the sky covered and part of the sky blank because they're outside their home galactic plane? Are they still close enough to their home galaxy that they're still surrounded by enough stars to fill the sky, or would the star density in their skies be seasonal? I think it would be fun to speculate on different hypothetical cultural evolutions of different kinds of night sky configurations, like "winter is when our planet's night sees our home galaxy, so winter is when the gods send their nightlumination down on us" etc.
dwaltrip 2y ago
I don’t think this is correct. Most of the stars we see in the night sky are close by in our neighborhood of the Milky Way. Being in the void between galaxies, there wouldn’t be many neighboring stars close to the orphan stars. This would make their night sky much emptier to the human eye.
- NKosmatos 2y ago
  For sure their sky would be a lot lot emptier, but I don't think it would be pitch black.