0

I'm becoming interested in the currently identified stars in the universe. There is a wide swath where much fewer named stars are shown. Why is this? The image below is a mollweide projection of the universe, with the earth at its center. It shows about 230,000 named stars located at their right ascension/declination points. enter image description here

Francis Hemsher
  • 109
  • 2
  • 2
    Wait, I find this confusing. In the linked answer, it makes sense that the supernovae we see are coming from other galaxies. But in this plot you show, I'd expect the majority of stars to be in our galactic plane. Therefore the answer might be more involved? – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Jul 24 '16 at 23:43
  • @AtmosphericPrisonEscape - Great, I'd sure like to hear more. Note: I can rotate the Universe to provided different viewing areas of the universe...if needed – Francis Hemsher Jul 25 '16 at 00:07
  • @AtmosphericPrisonEscape - Perhaps, it might help to view this universe interactive at my site file: http://www.svgDiscovery.com/N/N3.htm – Francis Hemsher Jul 25 '16 at 00:16
  • 2
    @FrancisHemsher: For more discussion it might be good to know where you got those 230.000 named stars from (which catalogue) and if they are maybe simply selected for extragalactic stars. Because inside of our galaxy (which in your plot shows next to no stars) there should be quite some more stars than that known and classified. – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Jul 25 '16 at 00:38
  • @AtmosphericPrisonEscape I obtained them from a csv file called HYG-Full See :http://www.astronexus.com/hyg It had a nice compact data file that I could modify. – Francis Hemsher Jul 25 '16 at 01:16
  • I started to edit your question to include the source you mention, but then something was off: the HYG page says the full version 3 contains only 120000 stars, not 230000. Please clarify and [edit] your question. –  Jul 25 '16 at 17:53
  • Voted to close as 'Unclear what you're asking' because the question is based on incorrect data, i.e. it contradicts itself. (Not too mention that others had to pry the information about the source from you in the comments). –  Jul 25 '16 at 17:55
  • @JanDoggen My first experience with this list was initially positive, because I appreciated the comments that guided me to correct the problem. However, your comment is quite negative and immature. – Francis Hemsher Jul 25 '16 at 20:10

1 Answers1

0

The database used for the above was for Deep Sky Objects, not stars. When I changed the database the correct one, then the following image is distribution of 120,000 named stars. Thanks for flagging my error. enter image description here

Francis Hemsher
  • 109
  • 2
  • 1
    Hmm, No upvote from me! The answer for the deep sky catalogue is indeed just a duplicate of the Q about the supernova distribution. Maybe this would be better removed altogether. – ProfRob Jul 25 '16 at 15:36