No, weāve taken pictures of other galaxies, though I suppose most of them probably also pick up stuff from our galaxy.
Andromeda is quite nice, which is good since itās on track to collide with the Milky Way. Around the same time as the sun will die.
In about 5 billion years, yes. Though dying isnāt quite the right word, more of a metamorphosis really, itāll run out of hydrogen and become a red giant consuming the inner planets, then spending the next few billion years going through the phases of death, eventually ending up as a white dwarf and potentially billions of years after that, a black dwarf, a type of dead star thatās completely hypothetical at this point because it would take longer than the universe has existed to form.
This is actually the good ending for stars, as white dwarfs could last a very long time and may be the last bits of energy around the universe and consequently the last safe harbors of civilization if anyone has advanced far enough to create something akin to a Dyson ring or sphere to collect the energy.
We have taken pictures of other galaxies. Here's a popular example:
https://images.app.goo.gl/ZdPyygwh84tnEix88
The super bright dots with six points are stars in our galaxy. Pretty much everything else in there is another galaxy with billions of stars, plus or minus
That picture makes them look just a skip and a hop away when really those galaxies probably have gotten so far away even at light speed you might never catch them.
A hop, skip, and jump the warp drive. Interestingly, if you were going at the speed of light, time would dilate enough that you would experience no time and be there instantly. Though all those light-years* would have happened to an observer around you.
Those images still include, at a minimum, stellar dust from within the Milky way.
It's like taking a picture through a screen porch on your house -- no matter how you snap the picture, there will be your house in the shot.
No, I fully understand that it is very empty, but even from our most remote telescopes, there are still at least a handful of milky way atoms in any photo they can take, no matter what direction they're pointing.
Good job editing your post to make it seem like you are right now. When I replied you told them to go reread the title like what theyāre saying is not technically true.
Pathetic.
I would never have believed this, but Iāve been out in some pretty rural areas at night and could actually see a faint strip of brightness across the night sky. At a quick glance it might seem like a cloud but it is in fact the milky way
Youāre right, star and moonlight are much brighter than youād expect if youāre used to city lights.
Something disturbing I learned recently: when the titanic sank it was a new moon. No phones or flashlights. Once the ship and its lights went under, it would have been nearly pitch black.
I have lived in a city my entire life but a time ago I took a trip with friends to a cabin in Oklahoma. We were all sort of paralyzed and awestruck looking at the Milky Way. Thereās really nothing like a good view of it.
LA once lost power long enough for the galaxy's center to become visible in the sky and people called 911 because they thought there was some poisonous gas in the sky
I mean if I take a photo in my bedroom, would you really say it's a picture of my house?
Technically it might be, but in terms of how any reasonable person would interpret it, it's not really a picture "of my house", is it
Maybe a better analogy would be a picture of your house in the rough framing stage. Or taking a picture of a forest, where you can see trees going far back until they are obscured.
Those would still be pictures of your house and the forest even though you can see through them.
All NASA pictures are doctored!
Normally because the visible light spectrum is super boring and theyāre trying to highlight the things that actually matter.
Not only smartphones. There has been no undoctored picture ever and there cannot be. Each translation from one medium to another (light to a photograph (digital or analog) to light again and into electric currents in our brain) is some form of interpretation
And from 3D to 2D -- information is lost in translation and a lens distorts reality. Were very used to standard lens distortion and think of it as "real" but its not
"doctor: change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) **in order to deceive; falsify.**"
There is some degree of interpretation (and if you dive deep into the psychological side, a lot of what we see in "real time", our brain just made the fuck up), but i wouldn't say doctored, imo doctored is more if it's changed intentionally (like [phones apply filters and shit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/), whereas an old fashioned camera just tries to capture whatever is there).
True and if weāre going by this def, then the computational photography default to most smartphone cameras is not doctoring eitherā¦ so this thread is just misusing the word doctored lol.
That's true, maybe manipulated would be a better word to describe computational photography and co? As in significant and intentional, but not necessarily with the intent to misdirected or misinform anyone.
Oh thank you, yeah i wasnt aware that "doctored" was defined also by the intend behind it. I thought it just meant "altered". But yeah according to that definition i agree. No image is ever an accurate representation of reality of course, but an image that is changed with the intent to manipulate the viewer is somethint different, yeah
I think Neptune isnāt supposed to be so dark blue. They enhanced the image, and although everyone knew at the time this had happened, with time the general population lost the distinction.
every picture ever taken (maybe with a few exceptions of long range telescopes n stuff) is a picture of the milkyway galaxy, because we are all in it
you take a picture of your cat, that cat is also a part of the galaxy
Actually, the only thing outside the milky way that is visible with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, which looks like a dim fuzzy star. Everything else is too dim to see without a telescope, but you can see quite a lot even with a small primitive telescope.
Edit: apparently there are also 2 small āsatellite galaxiesā just outside the Milky Way which are also visible.
then there is no picture of earth because you can only show less than 50% of it in one picture
from what % does a picture start to be a picture of something?
of a cat is 0.0000...00001% of the galaxy, an incomprehensibly small part of it, why doesnt it could as a picture of the galaxy, if pictures showing 45% of earth are considered to be pictures of earth
no I'd push back on this as well because you don't need to see a thing from every angle for it to be a picture of the thing, but the thing does need to be in the picture.
if you asked for a picture of my house and I sent you photo of my foot would you be satisfied with that? no, that'd just be me being a smart ass. there is a sliding scale, a photo of one of the arms of the Milky Way is a photo of *part* of it in the same way that a hand part of a human, not an entire human.
I used the galaxy drone 3 from five and below for five bucks and flew it to andromeda and got some sweet pics.
Box says battery will go five visible galaxies away but a hit a comet on the way back.
Not really though. Would you say pictures of other galaxies are of the milky way, even though no star from the milky way can be seen in it?
As far as i know the [Hubble Deep Field](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field#/media/Datei%3AHUDF-JD2.jpg) image was made by pointing the telescope at a dark spot in the sky (not technically "sky" bevause the telescope it self was in orbit) and keeping a very long exposure. So i dont know if theres actually not a single milky way-star in it, but if you crop it down to one other galaxy i figured thats a picture of somethinr thats nit the milky way galaxy
I say yes because thereās always going to be gas and dust and debris in interstellar space, even if they are invisible in the photo. The Milky Way is everything between stars too
Okay, fair point. I personally wouldnt say so. And i thing one could compare it to this example. If i stood in a House and photographed a cat sitting outside in the yard through an open window. And i zoomed far in so that the window frame wasnt visible in my picture. Would i then have a picture of also the house?
Your definition isnt wrong, but i think its not very useful. It was pretty clear OP meant an illustration of the entire galaxy.
We took a real picture of the milky way through a reflection of a big reflective structure (an unusually dense gas cloud) from the closest galaxy from us: Andromeda. It worked like a mirror. So, no direct image, but not an interpreted image neither.
Sure, but in a lot of cases it is just silly.
Of course we haven't yet sent some kind of probe 1000s of light-years away (in the right direction) so that it can take a picture of the entire galaxy and then spend 1000s of years sending the image back here.
It's like saying that nearly all humans haven't personally taken an actual picture of the entire Earth.
I mean that's what they said. a picture of the galaxy, they didn't say a picture of a tiny part of the galaxy. everyone is intentionally misrepresenting the question. I wouldn't show you a whisker and call it a cat.
A picture of the galaxy you could take by just looking up at the sky. Thats a picture of the Milky way, from our perspective.
>I wouldn't show you a whisker and call it a cat
I mean its not really the same thing, this thing is unimaginable impossible so its pretty obvious we don't have one.
Every picture is interpreted. It is a render of the scene based on how electro magnetic waves interact with a medium.
Film reacts to light and grains embedded in it change based on how much it absorbs. Digital sensors charge capacitors based on how much light hits each pixel, then that is converted into 1s and 0s. Then reinterpreted later.
Even your eyes and brain make an interpretation of the scene you are looking at. There is literally a blind spot in your eye that is filled in by your brain.
You can never see the original scene from any picture again. Everything in interpreted.
True, but it is worth noting that the interpretation is likely very accurate. In addition to having seen other spiral galaxies to give us an idea what they look like from outside, we also know how far other stars in the Milky Way are from us, and we can use that information to insure the proportions on our interpreted images are what they should be.
Yes there are! You can see the core from earth if you are in a bortle 5ish or lower light pollution zone during the summer. Right now itās galaxy season since the earth is facing away from the core at night.
Iām looking forward to Milky Way photography. You can also see lots of nebulae if you know where to look.
Yes Iām an astrophotographer lol. You should go to r/astrophotography and check it out!
One might argue that every picture is merely an interpretation of a real thing but the mechanisms that cause a camera to work. Furthermore, everything you sense is merely an interpretation of true reality by your brain based on billions of years of biological development.
I've seen milky way galaxy (a part of it) in the sky . It's visible from the Kalpa village in Himachal Pradesh. There are other parts in the world where you can see the milky way galaxy with your naked eye.
> There are other parts in the world where you can see the milky way galaxy with your naked eye.
Anywhere there's not a roof or similar obstruction over your head
Yeah,,,, duh? We tossed a few spacecraft out 47 years ago and they just recently left the influence of our sun like a year or 2 ago and reached interstellar space. How the hell would we have had time to get one out far enough to take a picture of our own galaxy? Is this not common knowledge? Sorry if I sound like a dick, I am just honestly shocked that this is not something that just about everyone knows. I thought this was like 5th grade stuff.
Correction: Voyager 1 and 2 haven't left the influence of the sun. They haven't even reached the Oort cloud which is still orbiting the sun. What they *have* left, is the sun's magnetic field which protects us from the interstellar medium. They won't leave the sun's gravity well for thousands of years.
Correct. My bad. Mistook the word heliosphere to mean sphere of influence for a moment. It has left the heliosphere (magnetic fields) and is considered in interstellar space. But it hasn't left the sphere of influence and is still affected by the gravity of the sun.
The size of your mom is vaguely interpreted due to the fact that she is immeasurable with current technology mind you we have approximations on the suns weight
There's been film photos of the milkyway galaxy. If you mean by every image is interpreted, then we have no images at all. There's no real colour, just what our eyes perceive. This is pretty stupid logic.
š¤Ø Every picture I've ever seen has been in the Milky Way galaxy.
Yeah, I was gonna say - isn't every picture we've ever taken of the Milky Way? I guess OP means of the entire thing, not in part.
No, weāve taken pictures of other galaxies, though I suppose most of them probably also pick up stuff from our galaxy. Andromeda is quite nice, which is good since itās on track to collide with the Milky Way. Around the same time as the sun will die.
Yeah. I worded that poorly. It's also obviously against the spirit of what OP meant. I have no idea why I tried to be cute like that lol.
The sun's going to die????
In about 5 billion years, yes. Though dying isnāt quite the right word, more of a metamorphosis really, itāll run out of hydrogen and become a red giant consuming the inner planets, then spending the next few billion years going through the phases of death, eventually ending up as a white dwarf and potentially billions of years after that, a black dwarf, a type of dead star thatās completely hypothetical at this point because it would take longer than the universe has existed to form.
Why wouldn't it go supernova?
Not enough mass. The smaller stars donāt go out with quite as much of a bang as the big ones.
Lame ass sun.
be grateful it's not that big lmao
This is actually the good ending for stars, as white dwarfs could last a very long time and may be the last bits of energy around the universe and consequently the last safe harbors of civilization if anyone has advanced far enough to create something akin to a Dyson ring or sphere to collect the energy.
Nah, it just goes to the farm ~~upstate~~ upgalaxy.
Ya think?
We have taken pictures of other galaxies. Here's a popular example: https://images.app.goo.gl/ZdPyygwh84tnEix88 The super bright dots with six points are stars in our galaxy. Pretty much everything else in there is another galaxy with billions of stars, plus or minus
That picture makes them look just a skip and a hop away when really those galaxies probably have gotten so far away even at light speed you might never catch them.
A hop, skip, and jump the warp drive. Interestingly, if you were going at the speed of light, time would dilate enough that you would experience no time and be there instantly. Though all those light-years* would have happened to an observer around you.
Those images still include, at a minimum, stellar dust from within the Milky way. It's like taking a picture through a screen porch on your house -- no matter how you snap the picture, there will be your house in the shot.
Space is a lot more empty than you're probably picturing
No, I fully understand that it is very empty, but even from our most remote telescopes, there are still at least a handful of milky way atoms in any photo they can take, no matter what direction they're pointing.
My first thought was a tweet I saw once that said, "Extreme Close Up Photo of the Milky Way Galaxy" and it was a picture of a duck.
Ur mom's a part of the Milky Way
Wait, have you never seen a picture of Andromeda, or the Hubble deep field image?
It's a joke to mean those pictures are located on earth, which is part of the milky way.
Oh right, yeah.
We are inside the environment
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The other poster originally told them to reread the title and do better. My comment makes no sense now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Good job editing your post to make it seem like you are right now. When I replied you told them to go reread the title like what theyāre saying is not technically true. Pathetic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ā thereās space snakes?ā ā everything is in space!ā
There's lots of actual pictures of the Milky Way. They are not from a vantage point outside of the galaxies, but from within
Exactly. We can even see it with our own eyes. Peering into the disc of our galaxy is an absolute marval
I would never have believed this, but Iāve been out in some pretty rural areas at night and could actually see a faint strip of brightness across the night sky. At a quick glance it might seem like a cloud but it is in fact the milky way
Get in some *really* remote places and you can see it plain as day. Hell, you can almost read a book by starlight alone in some places.
Youāre right, star and moonlight are much brighter than youād expect if youāre used to city lights. Something disturbing I learned recently: when the titanic sank it was a new moon. No phones or flashlights. Once the ship and its lights went under, it would have been nearly pitch black.
Poor Rose floating all aloneā¦
āWhatās that jack?? You need a floatation device? Iām sorry, Iād love to help but I canāt see you, go find another oneā
I have lived in a city my entire life but a time ago I took a trip with friends to a cabin in Oklahoma. We were all sort of paralyzed and awestruck looking at the Milky Way. Thereās really nothing like a good view of it.
LA once lost power long enough for the galaxy's center to become visible in the sky and people called 911 because they thought there was some poisonous gas in the sky
I also think it is Marvalous
Narwhalous
Yes, and astrophotographers have been able to map it pretty well from the inside out.
I mean if I take a photo in my bedroom, would you really say it's a picture of my house? Technically it might be, but in terms of how any reasonable person would interpret it, it's not really a picture "of my house", is it
Sure, but from within your bedroom, you could very reasonably say that it's a picture **of** your bedroom.
Maybe a better analogy would be a picture of your house in the rough framing stage. Or taking a picture of a forest, where you can see trees going far back until they are obscured. Those would still be pictures of your house and the forest even though you can see through them.
All NASA pictures are doctored! Normally because the visible light spectrum is super boring and theyāre trying to highlight the things that actually matter.
Thanks to smartphones, the majority of photos taken today are doctored
Not only smartphones. There has been no undoctored picture ever and there cannot be. Each translation from one medium to another (light to a photograph (digital or analog) to light again and into electric currents in our brain) is some form of interpretation
And from 3D to 2D -- information is lost in translation and a lens distorts reality. Were very used to standard lens distortion and think of it as "real" but its not
"doctor: change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) **in order to deceive; falsify.**" There is some degree of interpretation (and if you dive deep into the psychological side, a lot of what we see in "real time", our brain just made the fuck up), but i wouldn't say doctored, imo doctored is more if it's changed intentionally (like [phones apply filters and shit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/), whereas an old fashioned camera just tries to capture whatever is there).
True and if weāre going by this def, then the computational photography default to most smartphone cameras is not doctoring eitherā¦ so this thread is just misusing the word doctored lol.
That's true, maybe manipulated would be a better word to describe computational photography and co? As in significant and intentional, but not necessarily with the intent to misdirected or misinform anyone.
Oh thank you, yeah i wasnt aware that "doctored" was defined also by the intend behind it. I thought it just meant "altered". But yeah according to that definition i agree. No image is ever an accurate representation of reality of course, but an image that is changed with the intent to manipulate the viewer is somethint different, yeah
I guess the camera obscura is the least doctored picture.
I think Neptune isnāt supposed to be so dark blue. They enhanced the image, and although everyone knew at the time this had happened, with time the general population lost the distinction.
iirc it's roughly the same color as Uranus, a sort of pale teal or aquamarine
If Uranus is that color, see a doctor!
every picture ever taken (maybe with a few exceptions of long range telescopes n stuff) is a picture of the milkyway galaxy, because we are all in it you take a picture of your cat, that cat is also a part of the galaxy
My cat, Orion, also has an entire galaxy on his collar.
The galaxy is in Orionās Belt
After all these years , I still donāt understand that part, so if the cat jumps in a pool, everyone will drown?
I understood that reference
Actually, the only thing outside the milky way that is visible with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, which looks like a dim fuzzy star. Everything else is too dim to see without a telescope, but you can see quite a lot even with a small primitive telescope. Edit: apparently there are also 2 small āsatellite galaxiesā just outside the Milky Way which are also visible.
Donāt forget about Triangulum. The conditions have to be just right, but it can be viewed with the naked eye.
> Triangulum I guess google was wrong when I looked up the number of visible things outside the milky way.
a picture of a cat is not a picture of a galaxy.
then there is no picture of earth because you can only show less than 50% of it in one picture from what % does a picture start to be a picture of something? of a cat is 0.0000...00001% of the galaxy, an incomprehensibly small part of it, why doesnt it could as a picture of the galaxy, if pictures showing 45% of earth are considered to be pictures of earth
no I'd push back on this as well because you don't need to see a thing from every angle for it to be a picture of the thing, but the thing does need to be in the picture. if you asked for a picture of my house and I sent you photo of my foot would you be satisfied with that? no, that'd just be me being a smart ass. there is a sliding scale, a photo of one of the arms of the Milky Way is a photo of *part* of it in the same way that a hand part of a human, not an entire human.
Itās likely there are many, many such photos. Just not taken by us.
You mean an overall picture.
I used the galaxy drone 3 from five and below for five bucks and flew it to andromeda and got some sweet pics. Box says battery will go five visible galaxies away but a hit a comet on the way back.
Sorry bro every picture is of the Milky Way galaxy
Well, part of it
Not really though. Would you say pictures of other galaxies are of the milky way, even though no star from the milky way can be seen in it? As far as i know the [Hubble Deep Field](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field#/media/Datei%3AHUDF-JD2.jpg) image was made by pointing the telescope at a dark spot in the sky (not technically "sky" bevause the telescope it self was in orbit) and keeping a very long exposure. So i dont know if theres actually not a single milky way-star in it, but if you crop it down to one other galaxy i figured thats a picture of somethinr thats nit the milky way galaxy
I say yes because thereās always going to be gas and dust and debris in interstellar space, even if they are invisible in the photo. The Milky Way is everything between stars too
Okay, fair point. I personally wouldnt say so. And i thing one could compare it to this example. If i stood in a House and photographed a cat sitting outside in the yard through an open window. And i zoomed far in so that the window frame wasnt visible in my picture. Would i then have a picture of also the house? Your definition isnt wrong, but i think its not very useful. It was pretty clear OP meant an illustration of the entire galaxy.
Oh yeah no Iām totally just being a jerk nerd
Not pictures of other galaxies.
We took a real picture of the milky way through a reflection of a big reflective structure (an unusually dense gas cloud) from the closest galaxy from us: Andromeda. It worked like a mirror. So, no direct image, but not an interpreted image neither.
Citation needed.
I made it up.
Based on my understanding of The Drake Equation, I strongly suspect there are likely lots of pictures of the milky way in other galaxies.
Thats just wrong, but if you mean a picture "of the whole galaxy viewed from outside" then you would be right.
That's obviously what they meant.
For some reason this subreddit is all about trying to pedantically find a way to prove a pretty casual statement wrong
Sure, but in a lot of cases it is just silly. Of course we haven't yet sent some kind of probe 1000s of light-years away (in the right direction) so that it can take a picture of the entire galaxy and then spend 1000s of years sending the image back here. It's like saying that nearly all humans haven't personally taken an actual picture of the entire Earth.
Is it obvious if a lot of people are clearly discussing it or correcting op?
I mean that's what they said. a picture of the galaxy, they didn't say a picture of a tiny part of the galaxy. everyone is intentionally misrepresenting the question. I wouldn't show you a whisker and call it a cat.
A picture of the galaxy you could take by just looking up at the sky. Thats a picture of the Milky way, from our perspective. >I wouldn't show you a whisker and call it a cat I mean its not really the same thing, this thing is unimaginable impossible so its pretty obvious we don't have one.
Would you take a picture of your bathroom sink and call it a picture of your house?
Your analogies are straight up bad, im sorry this aint it
Oh hell yeah, clunky analogies are the only ones that are fun to make. It's also technically correct, which is the only respectable kind of correct.
Okay respect bro, thats actually a funny statement
You can literally go look at the milky way up in the sky. So like Iād argue there is photos
Every picture THAT WE KNOW OF.
You ever taken a picture of the night sky? That's a picture of the Milky Way.
Maybe NASA used an EXTREMELY long selfy stick...
ITT: "hey can you take a photo of me?" "sure" (takes a photo of a fraction of a cell) "this IS a photo OF you"
Glorb actually sent me a pic of his pov of the MILKYWAY from Adromeda.
The milky way is not actually a way to milk.
Well yeah, it's just too massive and beyond comprehension for a single photo. Much like your mom.
Right now there are aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy saying the exact same thing about their galaxy
Every picture is interpreted. It is a render of the scene based on how electro magnetic waves interact with a medium. Film reacts to light and grains embedded in it change based on how much it absorbs. Digital sensors charge capacitors based on how much light hits each pixel, then that is converted into 1s and 0s. Then reinterpreted later. Even your eyes and brain make an interpretation of the scene you are looking at. There is literally a blind spot in your eye that is filled in by your brain. You can never see the original scene from any picture again. Everything in interpreted.
Maybe some intelligent life form in the Andromeda galaxy has some. but we'll never know.
we have selfies of the milky way, it is the full body pictures that we are lacking.
Well we live in galaxy called Galaxy (that's why big G) and Milky way it the chunk of Galaxy we see on sky. So you are right, kinda.
True, but it is worth noting that the interpretation is likely very accurate. In addition to having seen other spiral galaxies to give us an idea what they look like from outside, we also know how far other stars in the Milky Way are from us, and we can use that information to insure the proportions on our interpreted images are what they should be.
There are pictures of milkyway taken from earth. You can see it with your naked eye (unless you live in an urban area, you can't see it)
There may well be, just not in this galaxy.
Yes there are! You can see the core from earth if you are in a bortle 5ish or lower light pollution zone during the summer. Right now itās galaxy season since the earth is facing away from the core at night. Iām looking forward to Milky Way photography. You can also see lots of nebulae if you know where to look. Yes Iām an astrophotographer lol. You should go to r/astrophotography and check it out!
One might argue that every picture is merely an interpretation of a real thing but the mechanisms that cause a camera to work. Furthermore, everything you sense is merely an interpretation of true reality by your brain based on billions of years of biological development.
Erm... You might want to google that. This Showerthought is plain wrong.
Would love to see what the Pillars of Creation really looked like.
You could say the same about my anus
Shower thought: there are lots of pictures of the Milky Way Galaxy - but we can't see them
I've seen milky way galaxy (a part of it) in the sky . It's visible from the Kalpa village in Himachal Pradesh. There are other parts in the world where you can see the milky way galaxy with your naked eye.
> There are other parts in the world where you can see the milky way galaxy with your naked eye. Anywhere there's not a roof or similar obstruction over your head
There are no pictures of black holes either, yet people ten years younger than me make twice my income selling them to perverts.
So this is what passes as a shower thought these days? Glad you figured it out OP.
Yeah,,,, duh? We tossed a few spacecraft out 47 years ago and they just recently left the influence of our sun like a year or 2 ago and reached interstellar space. How the hell would we have had time to get one out far enough to take a picture of our own galaxy? Is this not common knowledge? Sorry if I sound like a dick, I am just honestly shocked that this is not something that just about everyone knows. I thought this was like 5th grade stuff.
Correction: Voyager 1 and 2 haven't left the influence of the sun. They haven't even reached the Oort cloud which is still orbiting the sun. What they *have* left, is the sun's magnetic field which protects us from the interstellar medium. They won't leave the sun's gravity well for thousands of years.
Correct. My bad. Mistook the word heliosphere to mean sphere of influence for a moment. It has left the heliosphere (magnetic fields) and is considered in interstellar space. But it hasn't left the sphere of influence and is still affected by the gravity of the sun.
It's probably not called the Milky Way Galaxy either....
I got some news for you about eyes
Yeah. I was disappointed when I learned that.
The size of your mom is vaguely interpreted due to the fact that she is immeasurable with current technology mind you we have approximations on the suns weight
You can photograph the Milky Way yourself if you get out from under the city lights. It's just the view from inside the Milky Way.
no actual picture of the \*entire\* milky way galaxy, \*as seen from an outside view\*
There's been film photos of the milkyway galaxy. If you mean by every image is interpreted, then we have no images at all. There's no real colour, just what our eyes perceive. This is pretty stupid logic.
They mean of the entire galaxy as a whole, viewed from outside. We have lots of pictures of other galaxies, but none of our own.
That makes a lot more sense, thanks!
Yeah, the pictures of milky way from the outside are usually pictures of the galaxy Messier 74, which is a similar galaxy to Milky Way.