What direction does the Sun move in its orbit around the Galaxy?
It's a simple question, but I'm having some great difficulty finding a proven answer.
I had thought the Suns orbit was perpendicular to the planetary orbits. That is to say that the Sun travels "South or North" through the galaxy. Yet the best "official" answer I can find (archive.is/QmcmO) states that the Sun orbits the Galaxy on the same plane as Earths orbit. They go so far as to state that the Suns orbit directly crosses the circle of Earths orbit at the point of the Autumn Equinox.
So what is it Veeky Forums? Are we moving South? That's my best guess, but I want evidence proving this on way or the other.
We're moving in a roughly circular orbit (i.e. our distance from the center of the galaxy doesn't change a lot) but we bob in and out of the plane -- like the edge of a vinyl LP which was left out in the hot sun.
Nearby stars, which approximately share our motion (low relative velocities) have their spin axes oriented randomly. There is no link between galactic-motion and the orbits of their planets (if they have any.)
Incidentally, your illustration looks like one I've seen on web-pages positing that the Sun "tows" the planets in its wake, like the Mach cone of a supersonic jet. If that's where you found it, disregard anything you read there. It's crackpottery.
lel Nigger, go look up the map of the Local Bubble.
Nathaniel Rodriguez
Not a photo cretins open your eyes, off this board now fantasists.
Xavier Myers
The Stanford link (in the post you're asking about) says we crossed the galactic plane about two million years ago. The Mayans were a trifle off.
Incidentally, the "center of the galactic plane" is only an abstraction. Just means there's as many stars "above" as "below". Nothing happens there. There's no signpost. The location and time can only be computed to some degree of approximation.
It's a unreal as "the edge of the Galaxy". If you ever saw the first episode (not counting the pilot) of the Original Star Trek, the Enterprise crosses an "energy barrier" at the rim. There's no such barrier and no rim. The stars just become increasingly far apart. It's gradual.
Evan Scott
literally pieced together using data, it's a guess at what it looks like
Liam Bailey
and this should be impossible because?
Sebastian Rogers
yes, pieced together from data describing the photons that hit the detector from that direction, pieced together in a visible form, commonly called an "image"
Nolan Brown
Gases equilibrate in a vacuum, impossible to remain in any shape.
Jaxon Lopez
Stars are made of what?
Mason Parker
Plasma
Carson Diaz
and who says that they're not equilibriating? you do realize that the structures are light years big, right?
Jaxon Torres
They'd never end up as a "cloud" in the first place, impossible.
Jose Martinez
>arguing semantics holy shit, kill yourself
there are plenty of interstellar clouds, and tons of pictures of them and they do not emit any visible light, but the electromagnetic spectrum is much bigger than just visible light, maybe you should do some fucking research you imbecile
Oliver Evans
All I need to know is that gas clouds cannot exist in a vacuum. And if they did actually exist, they would also emit visible light.
Gabriel Cook
you're very wrong on both your shit points our sun and every single star formed from collapsing gas clouds due to gravity gravity is also what keeps gas clouds together in a vacuum
Ethan Gonzalez
>our sun and every single star formed from collapsing gas clouds due to gravity
Wonderful imagination you have there. So you're telling me that gas clouds "collapse" in a vacuum? That means absolutely nothing.
Gravity keeps gas clouds together in a vacuum? Earth's gravity can't even stop a helium balloon from floating away, what and earth do you think gravity can do in a vacuum?
Kevin Sanchez
>Earth's gravity can't even stop a helium balloon from floating away holy shit, you are an imbecile helium balloons float up because they are less dense than our fucking atmosphere you moron kill yourself this instant, please
Parker Hughes
>do the planets orbit in aproximately the same plane as the sun orbits through the galaxy yes. disks are stable structures that allow for harmonics and minimizes collisions.
If you had some huge fucking commet rip through Saturn's rings causing major disruption, the rings would reform roughly in about 2 (earth) years.
Adam Davis
Kek. And what happens to a helium balloon in a vacuum?
Lincoln Cook
you should really use a tripcode, or a name you're a fucking moron that can't even grasp the basics of physics, i'd rather talk with a worm
Ryan Howard
>There's no such barrier and no rim. The stars just become increasingly far apart. It's gradual. There is are terminal shock layers in the heliopsphere where plasma densities of the solar and intragalactic winds vary by orders of magnitude. The Milky Way is a solitary galaxy so our terminus is less interesting compared to more active galactic clusters. But the situation is more interesting than you suggest.
Especially if you're considering the parts on the edge of the galactic disk where dark matter densities are much higher than matter densities.
They literally do emit visible light, especially the high energy clouds that also emitt x-rays. The majority of "star forming" nebulae have to be cool enough to collapse and have lower temperature emissions except where they are adjacent to newly formed stars where they're lit the fuck up and both reflect and absorb visible light.
Robert Davis
yes, true, i was wrong there
Benjamin Miller
gif is from this guys website
The Sun travels South basically, offset at an angle of 30 degrees to the Solar plane, of which Earth's axis is tilted back towards center 23 degrees. So The Sun moving about 6 degrees away from due South in its galactic orbit. This may change as the Sun "bobs" high and low, in and out, relative to the Galactic core.
Kek, the stars would make far different movements if that bullshit was real.
Nolan Hill
You do realise that the revolution around the galaxy is orders of magnitude slower than the revolution of the planets around the sun, right? Most likely not.
Aaron Harris
Individual stars expel wind. The galaxy doesn't. You can't point to a radius and say "this is the edge". The stars go from being a few lightyears apart to being tens and then hundreds of lightyears apart.
If you take a picture of a galaxy "face on", you see a swirly disk. If you take a longer exposure, the core "burns out" of the image but more stars show at the edge. There is no sharply defined edge, nothing equivalent to a heliopause. If it happened, there'd be a bright band of radio emissions encircling that galaxy. There's not. You just don't realize the scale of what you're seeing.
"at the edge where dark matter densities much higher than matter densities" is nonsense. DM doesn't interact with baryonic matter except gravitationally. There may be a lot of dark matter in toto but it doesn't seem to clump to form obstacles to the flow of intergalactic gas (such as there is.)
If you disagree, please cite articles. Anything that says "electric universe" doesn't count. This board is supposed to be Veeky Forums, not /x/.
Isaiah Hall
Yes brainlet I'm aware of that weak excuse. The stars would still measurably change. Not to mention that other stars/galaxies are supposed to be moving too? What a clusterfuck.
Kayden Stewart
see it's the precession of the equinox
>The precession of the equinoxes refers to the observable phenomena of the rotation of the heavens, a cycle which spans a period of (approximately) 25,920 years, over which time the constellations appear to slowly rotate around the earth, taking turns at rising behind the rising sun on the vernal equinox.
Robert Wood
The stars rotate around us, it's not the fucking earth spinning that's incredibly retarded.
Chase Garcia
>The stars would still measurably change. They do measurably change, over long periods of time.
Oh you're a troll.
Isaac Adams
>literally pieced together using data That is literally what a camera is. Your brain also literally pieces together data collected by your two eyeballs, does that mean everything you see with both eyes open is fake because it is a combination of two separate images?
Xavier Lee
so not only does the sun orbit the galactic plane in a 60 degree tilt, it also orbits far off center ? wut the fuck we are freaks is the galatic plane way overstated ? how the hell are we in an orbiting arm if that bullshit pic is correct ?
The planets mostly appear with the Milky Way in the background. So the ecliptic -- the plane of the planets' orbits -- is roughly in the same plane as the disk of the galaxy.
Ian Russell
The background of your pic is of a planet, the foreground is of the eagle nebula. The nebula is far larger than the planet, which is why its images appears sharp and bright while the planet appears dim and pixelated.
The nebula is colored to reveal data gathered by instruments that can see frequencies of light outside the visible spectrum. This is so humans can see and understand the structure of the nebula instead of just the bright stars around the nebula like we would see with the naked eye. This is not theoretical data, but hard data, just like any other image of light outside of the visible spectrum that is falsely colored.
>What direction does the Sun move in its orbit around the Galaxy? The solar apex is roughly towards the constellation Hercules. The general direction is most easily found with the naked eye by looking for the bright star Vega, going a bit south. For us in the northern hemisphere, Vega rises in the NE around 10PM this month.
Hudson Long
There is no relationship between the ecliptic and the galactic plane. Pic related. Just after sunset, the Milky Way is the blue band, the ecliptic is the red band. They more nearly perpendicular.
gonna look from the "top" or the "bottom" of the milky way galactic disc ? "topside" were rotating clockwise bottom counter unless you want to call the bottom the top and the top the bottom we're halway out from center spinning around once every 230 million years
your other question (implied) is ... is are our planetary orbits on the same plane as our milky way galactic spinning arms ?
Benjamin Smith
Do you think these people would have the same level of outrage when they discover that practically every photo they see has similar levels of post production done on them? Talking about photos taken of things on Earth here.
David Robinson
The bigger portion of your pic is a small cropped section of a much larger picture taken by Hubble of the region in near proximity to a single star.
hey guys what if our ancestors were right and the sun really does orbit the earth but it goes like this >earth orbits the sun >sun orbits the milky way >the milky way orbits the center of the universe >the earth is the center of the universe >therefore the sun orbits the earth
Carson James
>the milky way orbits the center of the universe this is where you're wrong the "center of the universe" is everywhere, all points in the universe can be regarded as its perfect center
Blake Perry
i'm not talking about a geometric center or a gravitational one but one based upon consciousness itself
Levi Jackson
ah, so you're talking about bullshit, gotcha
James Nguyen
>Your brain also literally pieces together data collected by your two eyeballs, does that mean everything you see with both eyes open is fake because it is a combination of two separate images? I mean, if you want to get philosophical yes.
Jace King
and then I saw her, the streaming beauty of Aphrodite in the flesh...
A helium balloon will explode in a vacuum chamber and the helium would equilibrate equally in all directions with the chamber, gravity has no effect on this (because it's not real).
Samuel Torres
Get out Spirit Science.
Thomas Edwards
Just use a stronger balloon.
Ethan Miller
If the balloon explodes, why would the helium spread out equally in all directions within the chamber? Even if you are using the argument that gravity is just buoyancy then objects falling in a vacuum still makes sense because there is no denser material (gases) to push them up, and this has been demonstrated. When the helium is the only material in the vacuum chamber there are no denser gases to push it upwards so why would it spread out equally throughout the chamber? It would logically settle on the bottom.
Carter Hill
You don't have to start with a fully-inflated balloon. Just enough so when the chamber reaches vacuum, the pressure of the He doesn't exceed the tensile strength of the latex.
And yes, the balloon would sink like feather on the Moon.
Brody Miller
WHY TF IS /x/ HERE PRETENDING TO BE SMART. TAKE NOTE THEY ARE TELLING ANYONE WITH SENSE TO VISIT /x/. PLEASE DONT WILLINGLY BECOME FLAT EARTHERS WHO DONT BELIEVE IN GRAVITY OR 9/11