PDA

View Full Version : Is the north pole of the sun moving forward through space relative to the milky way?



Stellarbalance
2018-Apr-12, 04:55 AM
I find it interesting that our solar system is arranged like a flat disk instead of elliptical, the same can be seen with most galaxies, saturn's rings, etc. So far my understanding that the only explination for this phenomenon is because of the magic of collision. But it so happens that the rings of the Saturn travel around the planet's equator, moons relatively also travel around the planet's equator, even planets in our solar system orbit around the sun's equator. So my question is, is the north pole of the sun moving forward through space, as is the Earth, and other planets?

I don't think it's a coincidence that these disk formations are happening at the equator, thus magnetism seems like it's playing a bigger role than we might think compared to just collisions. Any thoughts?

trinitree88
2018-Apr-12, 01:27 PM
Stellarbalance. Yep. Picture the Milky Way galaxy as a giant merry-go-round when viewed from above, with the sun as a little spot of light, near one of the spiral arms...Sagittarius....and as the Milky Way rotates, that motion, too, is present. Takes a long time to rotate a spiral galaxy. Don't forget to grab a brass ring, leaning off your horse... pete

about 225-250 million years

grapes
2018-Apr-12, 01:35 PM
I find it interesting that our solar system is arranged like a flat disk instead of elliptical, the same can be seen with most galaxies, saturn's rings, etc. So far my understanding that the only explination for this phenomenon is because of the magic of collision. But it so happens that the rings of the Saturn travel around the planet's equator, moons relatively also travel around the planet's equator, even planets in our solar system orbit around the sun's equator. So my question is, is the north pole of the sun moving forward through space, as is the Earth, and other planets?

I don't think it's a coincidence that these disk formations are happening at the equator, thus magnetism seems like it's playing a bigger role than we might think compared to just collisions. Any thoughts?
According to this article ( http://earthsky.org/sky-archive/two-stars-flag-suns-path-in-milky-way ), the sun is headed toward Vega and away from Sirius. That can only be approximately true, since the RA/Dec of the two stars are not at 180 degrees from each other, but reasonably close.

So it's moving kinda at an angle, and the solar system is tilted with respect to the disk of the milky way.

grant hutchison
2018-Apr-12, 03:06 PM
The disc of the solar system is tilted about 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy, and the solar system is travelling more or less in the plane of the galaxy, although rising slightly towards galactic north at the moment.

Rings are confined to the equators of planets because planets are made oblate by their rotation. If the ring were not in the equatorial plane initially, it would precess differentially, smearing into a thick disc centred on the equatorial plane. After that, collisions and gravitational interactions cancel out the out-of-plane movements, and collapse the thick disc into a thin disc. No magnetism required.

Grant Hutchison

Hornblower
2018-Apr-12, 04:30 PM
I find it interesting that our solar system is arranged like a flat disk instead of elliptical, the same can be seen with most galaxies, saturn's rings, etc. So far my understanding that the only explination for this phenomenon is because of the magic of collision. But it so happens that the rings of the Saturn travel around the planet's equator, moons relatively also travel around the planet's equator, even planets in our solar system orbit around the sun's equator. So my question is, is the north pole of the sun moving forward through space, as is the Earth, and other planets?

I don't think it's a coincidence that these disk formations are happening at the equator, thus magnetism seems like it's playing a bigger role than we might think compared to just collisions. Any thoughts?

Saturn's rings are in the form of a thin circular disk, like the disk portion of a spiral galaxy such as M31. When we look at them slantways, the circumference appears elliptical, as can be demonstrated by looking ast a dinner plate at a similar angle.

DaveC426913
2018-Apr-12, 10:33 PM
Rings are confined to the equators of planets because planets are made oblate by their rotation. If the ring were not in the equatorial plane initially, it would precess differentially, smearing into a thick disc centred on the equatorial plane. After that, collisions and gravitational interactions cancel out the out-of-plane movements, and collapse the thick disc into a thin disc. No magnetism required.

This is worth repeating, because I think it addresses the crux of the OP's questions.

.
.

Further to that, a couple of points of clarification for the OP:

1] "Elliptical" galaxies are elliptical in 3 dimensions. i.e. like an egg. Elliptical does not refer to them looking like an ellipse when seen obliquely. Those are spiral galaxies (which are circular discs - often seen obliquely).

2] Solar systems and planetary rings are formed of planetoids, boulders, pebbles dust and gas. There is a lot of collision going on. Bodies that are not in the plane of rotation will get perturbed, due to those collisions, and - after time - will either be nudged into a common orbit about the equator, or coalesce into larger bodies, or get ejected, or fall into the sun/planet. This happens relatively fast, on a cosmic scale.

Whereas, galaxies (the parts we can see) are discrete stars, which tend to collide rarely. This is why elliptical (egg-shaped) galaxies can have relatively long lifetimes, on a cosmic scale. It is the general consensus that elliptical galaxies are younger, and spiral galaxies are older. i.e. given sufficient time, even galaxies are subject to the same flattening, disc-creating forces.

Elliptical (egg-shaped) galaxy:
http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/basic/galaxies/images/ellipt2.jpg

Spiral galaxy:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/images/gal_M100.gif

cjameshuff
2018-Apr-13, 01:26 AM
It's also worth pointing out that the sun's overall dipole field reverses with every solar cycle, about every 11 years. So even if it had a significant effect on the planets, that effect would cancel out in the long run.

And electromagnetic fields are easy to detect and measure. It's not hard to figure out that they're just not strong enough to have an effect on the motion of stars and planets, at least not those around normal stars and the motion of stars within galaxies.

Stellarbalance
2018-Apr-13, 04:53 AM
It's also worth pointing out that the sun's overall dipole field reverses with every solar cycle, about every 11 years.

Thank you Cjameshuff, that's worth noting.

I'd like to pose a question that maybe no one here would have an explanation for because there seems to be no research pertaining to this matter (that I can find) but I'm still curious ask anyways. Understanding that North and South poles are defined by their magnetic fields, and knowing that the Sun and most of the other planets in the solar system are all lined up pointing in similar direction with North or South facing forward moving through space (with a tilt more or less), all being bound at eachother's magnetic equators, how could the misconception that collision or the oblate nature of planets around the equator could ever form this formation when it is a magnetic formation seen across the Universe? The moon is relatively at the magnetic equator of the Earth, the Earth is at the Magnetic equator of the Sun, the Sun is at the magnetic equator of the galaxy, rings are at the magnetic equator of Saturn, the list goes on. The only explanation is that magnetic fields and gravitation pull work hand in hand some how. Something to think about.

grapes
2018-Apr-13, 02:08 PM
Thank you Cjameshuff, that's worth noting.

I'd like to pose a question that maybe no one here would have an explanation for because there seems to be no research pertaining to this matter (that I can find) but I'm still curious ask anyways. Understanding that North and South poles are defined by their magnetic fields, and knowing that the Sun and most of the other planets in the solar system are all lined up pointing in similar direction with North or South facing forward moving through space (with a tilt more or less), all being bound at eachother's magnetic equators, how could the misconception that collision or the oblate nature of planets around the equator could ever form this formation when it is a magnetic formation seen across the Universe? The moon is relatively at the magnetic equator of the Earth, the Earth is at the Magnetic equator of the Sun, the Sun is at the magnetic equator of the galaxy, rings are at the magnetic equator of Saturn, the list goes on. The only explanation is that magnetic fields and gravitation pull work hand in hand some how. Something to think about.
The equator is defined by the planets' rotation, so it would be planetary rotation that works hand in hand with planetary magnetic fields--and not completely, obviously.

grant hutchison
2018-Apr-13, 02:19 PM
The only explanation is that magnetic fields and gravitation pull work hand in hand some how. Something to think about.Well, no. Satellite systems are (imperfectly) aligned with the rotation plane of the parent body (because of conservation of angular momentum), and magnetic fields are (imperfectly) aligned with the rotation axis of the generating body (because that's how dynamos work). So it's no surprise that magnetic fields and satellite systems are (imperfectly) aligned with each other.

So what we've got is a confounding factor (rotation) linked to both the plane of the satellite system and the axis of the magnetic field, not a causal link between the latter two.

Grant Hutchison

PetersCreek
2018-Apr-13, 05:30 PM
The only explanation is that magnetic fields and gravitation pull work hand in hand some how. Something to think about.

Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, Stellarbalance. I'm afraid the statement I quoted runs afoul of our rules. Questions are certainly allowed and encouraged but your assertion is not a mainstream theory or idea. If you wish to make such a claim, you must do in our Against The Mainstream (ATM) subforum, where you would be required support it and answer questions about it. If you haven't already done so, please read our rules which are linked in my signature line below. You might also look at our ATM Theory Advice as well.

Jens
2018-Apr-14, 08:39 AM
Also, to add something else, not all planets have significant magnetic fields. Mars does not, and yet itís satellites still orbit around its equator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stellarbalance
2018-Apr-16, 03:26 AM
So what we've got is a confounding factor (rotation) linked to both the plane of the satellite system and the axis of the magnetic field, not a causal link between the latter two.

Grant Hutchison

But why does the north or south poles usually point forward when moving space for our sun, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.


Also, to add something else, not all planets have significant magnetic fields. Mars does not, and yet itís satellites still orbit around its equator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, but Mars use to have a strong magnetic field.

grant hutchison
2018-Apr-16, 12:42 PM
But why does the north or south poles usually point forward when moving space for our sun, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.It doesn't.

Grant Hutchison

DaveC426913
2018-Apr-16, 04:29 PM
But why does the north or south poles usually point forward when moving space for our sun, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

For every North or South pole pointing forward, there is a South or North pole pointing backward.

Strange
2018-Apr-16, 07:30 PM
For every North or South pole pointing forward, there is a South or North pole pointing backward.

And one at every angle in between.

Stellarbalance
2018-Apr-17, 08:05 AM
It doesn't.

Grant Hutchison

The sun points with its poles (either north or south depending on the year) toward the direction it is moving through space in. All planets follow the same pole direction imperfectly while moving through the milky way, despite a slight tilt to some. Uranus is an exception because it's rotation was probably disrupted by a meteor. My question is why?

grant hutchison
2018-Apr-17, 12:27 PM
The sun points with its poles (either north or south depending on the year) toward the direction it is moving through space in.No, it doesn't. The angle is about 30 degrees at present, in relation to its galactic orbit. There is no variation with the time of year (why would there be?). There will be variation during the period of a galactic orbit, since the direction in which the sun's poles point will be more-or-less conserved, while the direction of its orbital motion will change.
The rotation poles of other stars point in other directions relative to their galactic orbits.

All planets follow the same pole direction imperfectly while moving through the milky way, despite a slight tilt to some. Uranus is an exception because it's rotation was probably disrupted by a meteor. My question is why?As previously mentioned, the tendency of planetary and satellite rotation and revolution to align with the rotation of the parent star is because of conservation of angular momentum from the original cloud out of which the system condensed.

Grant Hutchison

trinitree88
2018-Apr-17, 07:27 PM
For every North or South pole pointing forward, there is a South or North pole pointing backward.


DaveC426913;2446113 Somewhere in my reading I believe there was some discussion of supernova remnants with aligned axes, indicating a preferred rotation due to galactic plane magnetic fields. Found Gaensler, and I think I read another, more detailed in LMC stats then, too......SEE:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000pras.conf..271G

was part of my talk at Harvard years ago, 1994, AAPT..."Gamma Ray Bursts, A Halo of Neutron Stars @ 400 Kiloparsecs?" which now applies to mergers causing most short bursts. Nascent pulsar velocities are high, but unlikely to cause most to escape the Milky Way, and parity effects in all weak interactions should dictate ejection from birthplace @ velocities sufficient to carry them to the galactic halo. Estimates at the time ran to ~ 10,000 buzzing along out there. ( If one heads for your house tomorrow afternoon...duck).

pete

Shaula
2018-Apr-17, 07:50 PM
DaveC426913;2446113 Somewhere in my reading I believe there was some discussion of supernova remnants with aligned axes, indicating a preferred rotation due to galactic plane magnetic fields. Found Gaensler, and I think I read another, more detailed in LMC stats then, too......SEE:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000pras.conf..271G
The hypothesis in that paper is not that the rotation of the stars are aligned to the field, it is that the shape of the remnants evolves in a way that is affected by the field. In particular that the ISM is affected by the weak magnetic fields in such a way that expanding gas in shaped by interactions with it.

AGN Fuel
2018-Apr-18, 02:54 AM
Apart from the underlying premise being incorrect (i.e. the sun does not orbit the galaxy in the direction of its polar axis), as cjameshuff pointed out earlier the sun's magnetic poles flip every 11 years or so. If there was some magnetic effect dictating the sun's motion around the galaxy, presumably a pole reversal would mean that such an effect would be reversed every 11 years resulting in alternating positive and negative acceleration. I'm not aware of any observational evidence to support that idea.

trinitree88
2018-Apr-18, 07:43 PM
The hypothesis in that paper is not that the rotation of the stars are aligned to the field, it is that the shape of the remnants evolves in a way that is affected by the field. In particular that the ISM is affected by the weak magnetic fields in such a way that expanding gas in shaped by interactions with it.
Shaula. It's true that Gaensler does not claim a majority of SNRs aligned, only that he culled certain specific morphological characteristics for the three he compared, admitting that the majority did not have well defined morphology, and in that you are correct. It's also true that he claims the chance alignment of those three is 7/1000, which is pretty chancy, and worth continuing to look into. pete

Shaula
2018-Apr-18, 07:59 PM
Shaula. It's true that Gaensler does not claim a majority of SNRs aligned, only that he culled certain specific morphological characteristics for the three he compared, admitting that the majority did not have well defined morphology, and in that you are correct. It's also true that he claims the chance alignment of those three is 7/1000, which is pretty chancy, and worth continuing to look into. pete
Worth looking into but irrelevant to this discussion because, as I said, the hypothesis is that the remnants evolve asymmetrically due to galactic magnetic field effects on the ISM. Not that the rotation of the precursor was aligned by said magnetic fields - which is more akin to what the OP was asking about.

Stellarbalance
2018-Apr-20, 07:22 AM
I can see how the planets came to be, because of the sun's rate of differential rotation. When the cloud was still present around the sun, matter around the poles wouldn't have had centrifugal force which would've gravitated into the sun or spun off into space. So what's left would be at the equator. The sun is composed of highly charged particles, with it's rotation it creates a magnetic field similar to an electrical coil, poles pointing out the top and bottom of the rotation. In short, the solar system has similar rotation and a disk shaped formation because of how it was created in the beginning. But how could this disk shaped formation hold for so long? Is there something still holding it in order?

grant hutchison
2018-Apr-20, 11:00 AM
I can see how the planets came to be, because of the sun's rate of differential rotation. When the cloud was still present around the sun, matter around the poles wouldn't have had centrifugal force which would've gravitated into the sun or spun off into space. So what's left would be at the equator. The sun is composed of highly charged particles, with it's rotation it creates a magnetic field similar to an electrical coil, poles pointing out the top and bottom of the rotation. In short, the solar system has similar rotation and a disk shaped formation because of how it was created in the beginning. But how could this disk shaped formation hold for so long? Is there something still holding it in order?Gravity.

Grant Hutchison

Hornblower
2018-Apr-20, 11:36 AM
Gravity.

Grant Hutchison

Yes, gravity holds it together, and it retains the approximately coplanar arrangements of the planetary orbits because of conservation of angular momentum. It takes a major perturbation, such as an extremely close encounter with another star, to disrupt it.

The internal dynamic action in the Sun which causes the differential rotation of the photosphere is virtually independent of the planets.

Shaula
2018-Apr-20, 01:10 PM
But how could this disk shaped formation hold for so long? Is there something still holding it in order?
Perhaps look at it another way - what forces or effects do you believe would alter the system sufficiently that it would lose its disk shape?