The amount of stars in different directions

[tmaromine]

It's kind of hard to describe direction using the Earth as a point, but if one looks from the equator straight up, or from the "side" of Earth, would the most stars lie in those "side" directions? If one was at a pole and looked straight up, they'd see stars from the "top." Are there more stars "to the sides", or more at the "top and bottom"?

 

Simpler to say I guess'd be: is there the same amount of stars in all directions, or are there more "up" or "out to the sides"? (using Earth as a point of reference.)

[Zwirko]

Nice question, but the answer would depend on a few things.

 

To see the most stars with the naked eye you should look along the galactic plane.

When you look along the galactic plane you are looking "through" the galaxy and can see countless stars set so close together that they appear as a faint glow running across the whole sky. Looking out of the galactic plane you are seeing pretty much the emptiness of inter-galactic space with a few nearby stars thrown in for good measure. My clestial geography is not too hot, so I can'say which location would give the best look along the galactic plane.

 

Also, with a big telescope you can peer far beyond the bounds of this galaxy - and so the number of stars you could see in any particular direction would be the same.

 

With the naked eye the southern hemisphere has a grander appearance - in contrast the north is quite dim.

[tmaromine]

Thanks for reply; that was pretty much what I was asking. :)

 

But since there's an overall plane, wouldn't that imply that there's not really a sphere as the universe? I could be wrong; that could have already been talked about - I should catch up on some things.

[Jay-qu]

Only locally, outside the galactic plane (and within it) lies thousands and thousands of galaxies, each with there own stars. But all (save a few) are just to dim to see with the naked eye.

 

Locally the universe is very 'clumpy' but on a large scale it is sort of homogenous..

[TheFaithfulStone]

No, there's a plane of the galaxy which, cosmically speaking, is pretty close by.

 

The "distribution" of stars depend on how far out you want to go. 1000 light years or so and it's pretty much spherical - after that it's concentrated in the "plane" of the galaxy. Go a WHOLE LOT farther, like several million light years, and it gets to be pretty homogenous again.

 

TFS

[tmaromine]

I see. That answers that question then. :lol:

[Turtle]

But since there's an overall plane, wouldn't that imply that there's not really a sphere as the universe? I could be wrong; that could have already been talked about - I should catch up on some things.

To clarify the other responses, the only 'overall' plane in reference to Earth is the plane of the Milk Way which is the name we give to the galaxy our solar system is in. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy with a central bulge and thinning edges, but galaxies take other forms (elliptical & irregular galaxies.

Back to your question on the spherical shape of the Universe. While there is a spherical representation, it is not the only view and the issue is far from satisfactorily settled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

At any rate, the choice of 'up' is arbitrarly but one we have to make before setting about to make measurements. :lol:

[tmaromine]

To clarify the other responses, the only 'overall' plane in reference to Earth is the plane of the Milk Way which is the name we give to the galaxy our solar system is in. The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy with a central bulge and thinning edges, but galaxies take other forms (elliptical & irregular galaxies.

Back to your question on the spherical shape of the Universe. While there is a spherical representation, it is not the only view and the issue is far from satisfactorily settled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

At any rate, the choice of 'up' is arbitrarly but one we have to make before setting about to make measurements. :lol:

 

I'll've to look at the Wikis; sure they'll also answer other questions I've yet to think of...

[maddog]

tmaromine,

 

I will add if your interested in more the galactic scale (ie Naked Eye stars), the

most you would likely find looking to the galactic center (near the constellation Scorpio). The whole bright panorama of stars being called the

"Milky Way" is just this galactic plane spoken of above. When you start considering

out past this galaxy, yes the maximal direction does become quite in all directions.

 

It would definitely be inappropriate to think of us being at some center of the

universe. I think since Shapely in the 1920's we gave that concept up.

 

maddog

[tmaromine]

tmaromine,

 

I will add if your interested in more the galactic scale (ie Naked Eye stars), the

most you would likely find looking to the galactic center (near the constellation Scorpio). The whole bright panorama of stars being called the

"Milky Way" is just this galactic plane spoken of above. When you start considering

out past this galaxy, yes the maximal direction does become quite in all directions.

 

It would definitely be inappropriate to think of us being at some center of the

universe. I think since Shapely in the 1920's we gave that concept up.

 

maddog

 

Yeah, we're doubtfully the center of the universe. After thinking over what's been posted, things have made more sense.

 

With naked eye, we probably would see mostly only the Milky way. And it only seems logical to think that if the universe is a sphere, then stars will be distributed across it almost evenly, at least when looked at from a far distance.

[Eclogite]

With naked eye, we probably would see mostly only the Milky way.

Very true. The only objects visible beyond the Milky Way, to the naked eye, are the Magellanic Clouds - satellite galaxies of ours, and the M31, the Andromeda Galaxy.

[Tormod]

We are at the center of the observational universe. This is because it is defined by the light that has reached us since the big bang. We see equally far in all directions. Thus the observational universe is spherical, which implies that the entire universe is much, much larger. Yet we cannot infer the shape of the rest of the universe from the part that we see.