Bill Pragnell wrote:

> This is a pretty awesome photo of the whole thing:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deathvalleysky_nps_big.jpg
> 
> Not exactly what you'd see with the naked eye but it gives you the idea.

This is awesomer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Perseid_Meteor.jpg

Here in the name of God does the night sky actually look like this?!

Post a reply to this message

> I will admit I don't know much about the geometry of our galaxy, but I was 
> under the impression that the disk is hundreds of billions of light years 
> "thick",

It's much smaller than you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way

> So... about 36 seconds of arc. Man, that's pretty small.

It's still one of the very few objects in the sky that allows you to 
actually see its shape with a good pair of binoculars or a small telescope 
though.

Post a reply to this message

>> I will admit I don't know much about the geometry of our galaxy, but I 
>> was under the impression that the disk is hundreds of billions of 
>> light years "thick",
> 
> It's much smaller than you think:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way

Heh, "only" 100,000 light years across and 1,000 light years thick. 
Well, that's the trouble when you start dealing with Really Huge 
Numbers, see?

There's a reason why would talk about 4 Terabytes rather than 
4,000,000,000,000 bytes - it's frighteningly easy to get the number of 
digits wrong! ;-)

Obligatory XKCD:

http://xkcd.com/558/

Post a reply to this message

> This is a pretty awesome photo of the whole thing:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deathvalleysky_nps_big.jpg
>
> Not exactly what you'd see with the naked eye but it gives you the idea.

I always wonder how they get these type of photos.

I mean this must be a pretty long exposure to get that detail?  But since 
the Earth is rotating, either the ground or the sky is going to get motion 
blurred.  Is this a photoshop of two images, or can they really get a photo 
like that in one shot?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> This is awesomer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Perseid_Meteor.jpg
>
> Here in the name of God does the night sky actually look like this?!

Well, that's an even longer exposure than the one I posted (you can tell by the
way the stars are slightly elongated), so no, that's not exactly what you'd see
by eye either. But similar!

A shame there's only one meteor visible there, I was expecting more...

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > I will admit I don't know much about the geometry of our galaxy, but I was
> > under the impression that the disk is hundreds of billions of light years
> > "thick",
>
> It's much smaller than you think:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_way

I always remember galactic vital statistics by knowing all the lyrics to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_song

:-)

Post a reply to this message

> I always remember galactic vital statistics by knowing all the lyrics to this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_song
> 
> :-)

Is that something like the song about the table of elements?

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > This is a pretty awesome photo of the whole thing:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deathvalleysky_nps_big.jpg
> >
> > Not exactly what you'd see with the naked eye but it gives you the idea.
>
> I always wonder how they get these type of photos.
>
> I mean this must be a pretty long exposure to get that detail?  But since
> the Earth is rotating, either the ground or the sky is going to get motion
> blurred.  Is this a photoshop of two images, or can they really get a photo
> like that in one shot?

I'm not sure. The fact that it's a nearly-complete panorama makes it even more
complicated - I guess it must have been unwrapped from a fisheye.

I'd think it was a single shot. I bet you could get away with up to a minute of
exposure, and it's very wide angle so any movement would be less noticeable.

Any expert photographers here want to comment?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I always remember galactic vital statistics by knowing all the lyrics to this:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_song
> >
> > :-)
>
> Is that something like the song about the table of elements?

Similar, but more catchy ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Is that something like the song about the table of elements?
> 
> Similar, but more catchy ;-)

Heh. I still enjoy listening to TMBG exclaim that "the Sun is a mass of 
incandescent gas". ;-)

BUT EVEN WHEN IT'S OUT OF SIGHT THE SUN SHINES NIGHT AND DAY!

Post a reply to this message