Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?Why are galactic centers always brighter than the edges?Distance away from earth to see it as a full diskHow would a very nearby supernova shockwave and remnants affect the Earth?How long would it take for a galaxy to collapse without dark matter?Correlation between large-scale galaxy structure and CMB fluctuations?Observationally distinguishing a galaxy of antimatter from a galaxy of matterCosmic Microwave Background seen from a hypothetical foreign Galaxy?Why does dark matter form halos?

My ID is expired, can I fly to the Bahamas with my passport

Attending a conference where my ex-supervisor and his collaborator are present, should I attend?

Feels like I am getting dragged into office politics

How to get SEEK accessing converted ID via view

Why do freehub and cassette have only one position that matches?

Is lying to get "gardening leave" fraud?

Why is there a change in the number of degrees of freedom when the following modification is made?

Password expiration with Password manager

Power LED from 3.3V Power Pin without Resistor

Pigeonhole Principle Problem

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Can I use 1000v rectifier diodes instead of 600v rectifier diodes?

Why do money exchangers give different rates to different bills

Packet sniffer for MacOS Mojave and above

Does the Darkness spell dispel the Color Spray and Flaming Sphere spells?

Was Hulk present at this event?

What is the most remote airport from the center of the city it supposedly serves?

Visa for volunteering in England

Disabling Resource Governor in SQL Server

What word means "to make something obsolete"?

How did Arya get back her dagger from Sansa?

What was the state of the German rail system in 1944?

Stark VS Thanos

Any examples of headwear for races with animal ears?



Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?


What does the sky look like to human eyes from orbit?At what distance could you see andromeda with the naked eye?Why are galactic centers always brighter than the edges?Distance away from earth to see it as a full diskHow would a very nearby supernova shockwave and remnants affect the Earth?How long would it take for a galaxy to collapse without dark matter?Correlation between large-scale galaxy structure and CMB fluctuations?Observationally distinguishing a galaxy of antimatter from a galaxy of matterCosmic Microwave Background seen from a hypothetical foreign Galaxy?Why does dark matter form halos?













19












$begingroup$


We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    Mar 29 at 11:28










  • $begingroup$
    @Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 15:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – Harry Johnston
    Mar 30 at 5:15















19












$begingroup$


We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    Mar 29 at 11:28










  • $begingroup$
    @Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 15:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – Harry Johnston
    Mar 30 at 5:15













19












19








19


3



$begingroup$


We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?



enter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We all know the typical sci-fi image of a guy standing on the ship deck and able to see a full galaxy. If you somehow were able to stand a few lightyears away from a galaxy would you be able to see it in full, as in the image below?



enter image description here







visible-light astronomy estimation galaxies






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 29 at 9:52









Kyle Oman

15.5k955112




15.5k955112










asked Mar 29 at 3:54









eli.rodriguezeli.rodriguez

14927




14927







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    Mar 29 at 11:28










  • $begingroup$
    @Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 15:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – Harry Johnston
    Mar 30 at 5:15












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 11:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    Mar 29 at 11:28










  • $begingroup$
    @Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
    $endgroup$
    – Burgi
    Mar 29 at 15:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
    $endgroup$
    – Harry Johnston
    Mar 30 at 5:15







4




4




$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20




$begingroup$
I always thought this was a protostar or early solar system.
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 11:20




1




1




$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28




$begingroup$
Do you mean whether the disk would be too faint to see because of the brightness of the center, or whether the size would fit in the field of view?
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
Mar 29 at 11:28












$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26




$begingroup$
@Burgi yes, until now I realize that is indeed a protostar, tbh I was a child when I watched that episode and looked a galaxy to me. But I have been wrong.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 15:26












$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32




$begingroup$
It might have been "tweaked" in the special editions
$endgroup$
– Burgi
Mar 29 at 15:32




1




1




$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15




$begingroup$
@Burgi, the canon is inconsistent.
$endgroup$
– Harry Johnston
Mar 30 at 5:15










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















21












$begingroup$

I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.



The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.



In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.



Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.




$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.



$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.



$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 9:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Mar 29 at 9:19










  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Mar 29 at 19:21











  • $begingroup$
    @SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 30 at 10:45


















7












$begingroup$

Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:34










  • $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 8:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Warren
    Mar 29 at 15:04










  • $begingroup$
    then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Mar 30 at 11:02


















7












$begingroup$

From NASA:




enter image description here
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 4:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:03






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Oman
    Mar 29 at 8:50











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469295%2fwould-a-galaxy-be-visible-from-outside-but-nearby%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









21












$begingroup$

I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.



The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.



In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.



Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.




$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.



$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.



$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 9:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Mar 29 at 9:19










  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Mar 29 at 19:21











  • $begingroup$
    @SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 30 at 10:45















21












$begingroup$

I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.



The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.



In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.



Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.




$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.



$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.



$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 9:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Mar 29 at 9:19










  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Mar 29 at 19:21











  • $begingroup$
    @SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 30 at 10:45













21












21








21





$begingroup$

I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.



The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.



In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.



Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.




$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.



$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.



$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



I am very deliberately not illustrating this answer with an image, because essentially any photographic image will misrepresent what you can see in the sky with the naked eye.



The surface brightness, that is the light per unit angular area, of extended objects is independent of distance$^1$. This is because the angle subtended by an object is proportional to the square of its distance, and so is the amount of light reaching an observer.



In other words, a galaxy looks about the same at any distance: it gets bigger or smaller, but its surface brightness (and therefore contrast with the background sky) doesn't change. This breaks down once you get close enough to pick out the individual stars, but with the naked eye you need to be just about inside the galaxy for that to happen$^2$.



Now the answer should be obvious: you would never see a galaxy looking like the one in your Star Wars screenshot. Rather, it would look like other galaxies you can see in the sky. If you've been to the Southern hemisphere and seen the Magellenic Clouds, you have a good idea of what another galaxy looks like with the naked eye. Likewise if you've managed to pick out Andromeda from somewhere dark. Actually, the fuzzy band of our own Milky Way also gives a decent idea of how bright on the sky a galaxy would look from outside$^3$.




$^1$ This isn't true for really distant objects when cosmological surface brightness dimming starts to kick in, but that isn't the case here.



$^2$ You could pick out some individual very bright stars from further away, but the majority that make up the smooth looking light of the galaxy start to blend together pretty quickly with distance.



$^3$ Because we're inside the galactic disc there's a lot of dust to get in the way of the view which causes some dimming, but it still gives a decent idea.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 29 at 8:49









Kyle OmanKyle Oman

15.5k955112




15.5k955112











  • $begingroup$
    That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 9:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Mar 29 at 9:19










  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Mar 29 at 19:21











  • $begingroup$
    @SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 30 at 10:45
















  • $begingroup$
    That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 9:04






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Mar 29 at 9:19










  • $begingroup$
    Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
    $endgroup$
    – Solomon Slow
    Mar 29 at 19:21











  • $begingroup$
    @SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 30 at 10:45















$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04




$begingroup$
That said, the Milky Way is very bright on the sky if you're dark adapted and in a place with no light pollution. Obviously, it wouldn't be visible (without some visual enhancements) in a brightly lit room.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 9:04




4




4




$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19




$begingroup$
@Luaan Under good conditions, the Milky Way & Magellanic clouds are certainly bright enough to be impressive, but saying they're very bright is an exaggeration, IMHO. FWIW, I live in the southern hemisphere, and have lived in areas of low light pollution. A few years ago we had zero light pollution for a couple of days after a big storm knocked out the electricity distribution in our district. The Milky Way & Magellanic clouds looked better than ever. :)
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
Mar 29 at 9:19












$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21





$begingroup$
Nice answer: Realistically, the characters in the movie should not be able to see any stars at all when they look out that window. At least, not unless their eyes work very differently from ours.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
Mar 29 at 19:21













$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45




$begingroup$
@SolomonSlow perhaps their AR TV is really dusty?
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 30 at 10:45











7












$begingroup$

Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:34










  • $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 8:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Warren
    Mar 29 at 15:04










  • $begingroup$
    then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Mar 30 at 11:02















7












$begingroup$

Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:34










  • $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 8:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Warren
    Mar 29 at 15:04










  • $begingroup$
    then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Mar 30 at 11:02













7












7








7





$begingroup$

Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Standing one or two light-years would never do it. Length of out Galaxy is about 100,000 light years. In the shown picture, the visual angle would be about 15°. Do the math, they're about 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 29 at 4:20









Hack MasterHack Master

792




792







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:34










  • $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 8:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Warren
    Mar 29 at 15:04










  • $begingroup$
    then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Mar 30 at 11:02












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:34










  • $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Mar 29 at 8:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
    $endgroup$
    – Doug Warren
    Mar 29 at 15:04










  • $begingroup$
    then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
    $endgroup$
    – vsz
    Mar 30 at 11:02







3




3




$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34




$begingroup$
Really like the math, but now what about the brightness? Would a photo from 380,000 light-years away from our Galaxy. would look as bright as in Sci-Fi film (without long exposure)
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:34












$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59




$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez It would definitely be far brighter than the background stars you see in the picture; however, I'd definitely turn the lights off in the room :) Also, it should be noted that the Star Wars galaxy is much bigger and denser than the Milky Way or Andromeda, so I'd expect you'd need to be more like a million light years away.
$endgroup$
– Luaan
Mar 29 at 8:59




4




4




$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04




$begingroup$
Just noting that they're not looking at our galaxy, as their story takes place "in a galaxy far, far away".
$endgroup$
– Doug Warren
Mar 29 at 15:04












$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02




$begingroup$
then what about standing as far away from the galaxy as the galaxy is wide? Because that was seemingly the true intent of the question, even if the exact values were off.
$endgroup$
– vsz
Mar 30 at 11:02











7












$begingroup$

From NASA:




enter image description here
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 4:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:03






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Oman
    Mar 29 at 8:50















7












$begingroup$

From NASA:




enter image description here
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 4:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:03






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Oman
    Mar 29 at 8:50













7












7








7





$begingroup$

From NASA:




enter image description here
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



From NASA:




enter image description here
Explanation: The Great Spiral Galaxy in Andromeda (aka M31), a mere 2.5 million light-years distant, is the closest large spiral to our own Milky Way. Andromeda is visible to the unaided eye as a small, faint, fuzzy patch, but because its surface brightness is so low, casual skygazers can't appreciate the galaxy's impressive extent in planet Earth's sky. This entertaining composite image compares the angular size of the nearby galaxy to a brighter, more familiar celestial sight. In it, a deep exposure of Andromeda, tracing beautiful blue star clusters in spiral arms far beyond the bright yellow core, is combined with a typical view of a nearly full Moon. Shown at the same angular scale, the Moon covers about 1/2 degree on the sky, while the galaxy is clearly several times that size. The deep Andromeda exposure also includes two bright satellite galaxies, M32 and M110 (bottom).








share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 29 at 4:32









Keith McClaryKeith McClary

1,441411




1,441411







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 4:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:03






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Oman
    Mar 29 at 8:50












  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 4:34






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
    $endgroup$
    – eli.rodriguez
    Mar 29 at 5:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:03






  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    Mar 29 at 6:44






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – Kyle Oman
    Mar 29 at 8:50







6




6




$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34




$begingroup$
Don't upvote this - instead write a letter to your rep about NASA funding cuts.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 4:34




1




1




$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31




$begingroup$
So I deduce from the NASA explanation that indeed you would be able to watch the Galaxy as in the picture but not as bright as it appears in the films.
$endgroup$
– eli.rodriguez
Mar 29 at 5:31




1




1




$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03




$begingroup$
@eli.rodriguez I can see Andromeda with binoculars - just the bright centre blob. Some can see it naked-eye. If you were ten times closer and turned off the lights in the control room and waited for your eyes to become dark-adapted, it would look about that size but not as bright. But still spectacular.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:03




9




9




$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44




$begingroup$
Andromeda has an apparent magnitude of 3.44 and the moon has -12.6, so the brightness of Andromeda is greatly exaggerated in the NASA image.
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
Mar 29 at 6:44




2




2




$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50




$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question at all, and in fact is grossly misleading with the image, where the surface brightness of Andromeda relative to the Moon is greatly exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– Kyle Oman
Mar 29 at 8:50

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469295%2fwould-a-galaxy-be-visible-from-outside-but-nearby%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029