OK, I'm sure I'm going to embarass myself by asking this, but hey, an honest question is an honest question, and I don't mind admitting that when it comes to this aspect of science, I'm ignorant. It's a question I've always had, so please stifle your giggles, and if you have an answer, I'd appreciate it. :) (And you probably will giggle, since this is the sort of question a third grader might ask!) But nothing ventured, nothing gained, I suppose...
First, a picture:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgkbsolarsystem.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FPanel6SolarSystem.jpg&hash=381c0467bd9e35a074094dec3b947a536d5ad0c2)
OK, so of course the planets orbit around the sun, with the sun in the center. My question, then, is if we were to hypothetically be standing on the sun (assume for a moment we could), what is above the sun if you keep on going up? And what's below the sun, if you keep on going down? Since planets revolve around the sun, I'm assuming that if you went far enough above it, or below it, you'd travel through space until you eventually reached another galaxy. Is that correct? Or, are there just asteroids, etc, or simply empty space?
I never took science in school, at least not past 11th grade biology, so... yeah. I've looked at different space websites, but I haven't found much of anything that answers my question.
Please be merciful to a curious, well meaning but ignorant (on this topic anyhow) woman. :P
Imagine that you had a planet on a string and you rotated around in a circle....the planet would move around you in a perpendicular fashion. Add more strings of planets and, assuming none hit each other, they would do the same.
Only with the sun that string is gravitational force (and some other forces).
This is also why saturn has bands around it and not just a big blob of gasses circling around every which way.
There is no real "above" or "below" the sun....there is no true up or down unless you are speaking in reference to something else. But to the point of your question; above and below the sun is empty space until you get away from it's gravitational force.
This explains it in more technical terms: http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/why-do-earth-planets-orbit-sun-a42229
Don't' worry, it wasn't a stupid question...most people probably wouldn't even think to ask.
Quote from: Whitney on February 02, 2012, 03:59:23 AM
Don't' worry, it wasn't a stupid question...most people probably wouldn't even think to ask.
I certainly wouldn't have. When I opened the thread and saw the picture my only thought was "ohhh, pretty!"
Thanks, Whitney!
And BooksCatsEtc, I love that picture too. I especially love real pictures of nebulas, etc. ;D
You should really study astronomy as an amateur hobby, you don't know what you're missing ;D
The Sun is at the centre of sphere commets and space debris called the Oort Cloud. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud) So if you head out from the Sun in any direction you'll find it.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daviddarling.info%2Fimages%2FOort_Cloud.jpg&hash=12a023132d1aa66d5e602bbe18e67598c57691dc)
Our local stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars) look like this out to 15 light years.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Fff%2FNearby_Stars_%252814ly_Radius%2529.svg%2F600px-Nearby_Stars_%252814ly_Radius%2529.svg.png&hash=889fcec0d25ad5cdcbf7428308c21405cc0e0087)
So if you go up or down you'll pass a few stars in the local area, but there are many hundreds of thousands of stars between us and the upper and lower sides of the Milky way. These are the stars like the North Star. The solar system is in a volume of space where stars are relativly sparse (good thing too stars are bloody dangerous things.) Eventually you would leave our galaxy and head off to other galaxies. But you'd have to be quick as they are all moving away from us as the universe is expanding and expanding faster all the time.
This is where the Sun is relative the rest of the Milky way.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F30%2FGalactic_longitude.JPG%2F634px-Galactic_longitude.JPG&hash=b346cfbaf1bb2629a44122064bd7b5cbaaaa0bd4)
I hope that helps.
Tank! Thank you very much! That's prettymuch what I was looking for! Very cool! ;D
Quote from: Tank
This is where the Sun is relative the rest of the Milky way.
.....
I hope that helps.
please please master
do show a couple of parsecs zooming out of frame!
where we stand on our petty yet beautifully exuberant aspiration planet, on a planar and above view with respect to Sagittarius A*, you know, the heart of black
then, I guess, play 3D billiard with a neighbourhood of galaxies proximal to us
and then make that a pin, in the oval /egg impression of the (this?) universe
You got us going Tank, you are molotof-proof
Here, have a 4D cube to ponder.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyzone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2F4dcube.gif&hash=37da167efb8a02faff9a90146bebc5d817dd0ebd)
Don't ask why - I have no idea.
Quote from: Asmodean
Here, have a 4D cube to ponder.
Is possible if sides are stretchy elastic. the ball corners will have a hard time maintaining physicality.
Does not trip perceptional logic, so not a "koan" graph. but nice, effective pondering.
I'm also off-topic for my expansion request, yes?
plenty of Why's if one cares to look!
Quote from: pytheas on February 02, 2012, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: Asmodean
Here, have a 4D cube to ponder.
Is possible if sides are stretchy elastic. the ball corners will have a hard time maintaining physicality.
Does not trip perceptional logic, so not a "koan" graph. but nice, effective pondering.
I'm also off-topic for my expansion request, yes?
plenty of Why's if one cares to look!
Actually, I think the sides are supposed to be of a fixed length. It's an approximation of four dimensions in the same way 3D might be approximated in Flatland.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 02, 2012, 07:07:53 PM
Here, have a 4D cube to ponder.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.funnyzone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2F4dcube.gif&hash=37da167efb8a02faff9a90146bebc5d817dd0ebd)
Don't ask why - I have no idea.
That's fascinating, Asmo. Thanks! I love stuff like that.
Here's one of my fave videos on the topic of where we are in the universe - Eames' "Powers of Ten"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
Oooh, I loved this thread. And I agree with Whitney, it's never even crossed my mind to ask what is "below" or "above" the sun. Thanks for all of the cool info, everyone (and the neat 4 D cube.)
I don't think of the sun having an above or a below, same with the earth. Most globes have me walking upside down, I very rarely do.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 03, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
I don't think of the sun having an above or a below, same with the earth. Most globes have me walking upside down, I very rarely do.
And the hat never shoots up, good thing too ;D
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 03, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
I don't think of the sun having an above or a below, same with the earth. Most globes have me walking upside down, I very rarely do.
Do all the toilets really flush backwards down there too?
Quote from: Amicale on February 02, 2012, 05:39:15 AM
Thanks, Whitney!
And BooksCatsEtc, I love that picture too. I especially love real pictures of nebulas, etc. ;D
Do you have this link? NASA's pic of the day (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/)
Quote from: hismikeness on February 03, 2012, 01:19:27 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 03, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
I don't think of the sun having an above or a below, same with the earth. Most globes have me walking upside down, I very rarely do.
Do all the toilets really flush backwards down there too?
QuoteDraining in bathtubs and toilets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect)
In 1908, the Austrian physicist Otto Tumlirz described careful and effective experiments which demonstrated the effect of the rotation of the Earth on the outflow of water through a central aperture.[27] The subject was later popularized in a famous article in the journal Nature, which described an experiment in which all other forces to the system were removed by filling a 6-foot (1.8 m) tank with 300 US gallons (1,100 l) of water and allowing it to settle for 24 hours (to allow any movement due to filling the tank to die away), in a room where the temperature had stabilized. The drain plug was then very slowly removed, and tiny pieces of floating wood were used to observe rotation. During the first 12 to 15 minutes, no rotation was observed. Then, a vortex appeared and consistently began to rotate in a counter-clockwise direction (the experiment was performed in Boston, Massachusetts, in the Northern hemisphere). This was repeated and the results averaged to make sure the effect was real. The report noted that the vortex rotated, "about 30,000 times faster than the effective rotation of the earth in 42° North (the experiment's location)". This shows that the small initial rotation due to the earth is amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex and may be observed under carefully controlled laboratory conditions.[28][29]
In contrast to the above, water rotation in home bathrooms under normal circumstances is not related to the Coriolis effect or to the rotation of the earth, and no consistent difference in rotation direction between toilets in the northern and southern hemispheres can be observed. The formation of a vortex over the plug hole may be explained by the conservation of angular momentum: The radius of rotation decreases as water approaches the plug hole so the rate of rotation increases, for the same reason that an ice skater's rate of spin increases as she pulls her arms in. Any rotation around the plug hole that is initially present accelerates as water moves inward. Only if the water is so still that the effective rotation rate of the earth (once per day at the poles, once every 2 days at 30 degrees of latitude) is faster than that of the water relative to its container, and if externally applied torques (such as might be caused by flow over an uneven bottom surface) are small enough, the Coriolis effect may determine the direction of the vortex. Without such careful preparation, the Coriolis effect may be much smaller than various other influences on drain direction,[30] such as any residual rotation of the water[31] and the geometry of the container.[32] Despite this, the idea that toilets and bathtubs drain differently in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres has been popularized by several television programs, including The Simpsons episode "Bart vs. Australia" and The X-Files episode "Die Hand Die Verletzt".[33] Several science broadcasts and publications, including at least one college-level physics textbook, have also stated this
That is a good wiki, it's about the Coriolis effect, not just toilets.
My impression is water rotates clockwise which should be considered the correct way, it's what clocks do after all.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 03, 2012, 01:28:15 AM
Quote from: Amicale on February 02, 2012, 05:39:15 AM
Thanks, Whitney!
And BooksCatsEtc, I love that picture too. I especially love real pictures of nebulas, etc. ;D
Do you have this link? NASA's pic of the day (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/)
Wow, no I didn't! But I do now, thanks to you! *bookmarks*
Quote from: Amicale on February 02, 2012, 02:50:30 AM
OK, I'm sure I'm going to embarass myself by asking this, but hey, an honest question is an honest question, and I don't mind admitting that when it comes to this aspect of science, I'm ignorant. It's a question I've always had, so please stifle your giggles, and if you have an answer, I'd appreciate it. :) (And you probably will giggle, since this is the sort of question a third grader might ask!) But nothing ventured, nothing gained, I suppose...
First, a picture:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgkbsolarsystem.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FPanel6SolarSystem.jpg&hash=381c0467bd9e35a074094dec3b947a536d5ad0c2)
OK, so of course the planets orbit around the sun, with the sun in the center. My question, then, is if we were to hypothetically be standing on the sun (assume for a moment we could), what is above the sun if you keep on going up? And what's below the sun, if you keep on going down? Since planets revolve around the sun, I'm assuming that if you went far enough above it, or below it, you'd travel through space until you eventually reached another galaxy. Is that correct? Or, are there just asteroids, etc, or simply empty space?
I never took science in school, at least not past 11th grade biology, so... yeah. I've looked at different space websites, but I haven't found much of anything that answers my question.
Please be merciful to a curious, well meaning but ignorant (on this topic anyhow) woman. :P
I hope this doesn't come off as too nit picky but having just listened to
Neil Degrasse Tyson's The Pluto Files I think that picture of the solar system is a bit dated. We now only recognize eight planets.
The four Terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus, The Earth and Mars.
Then the four Gas Giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Poor little Pluto used to be thought of as the ninth planet from the sun but is now considered a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet or a plutoid.
Not that it's a very big deal but we do see our solar system a little differently now.
Quote from: Crocoduck on February 09, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
I hope this doesn't come off as too nit picky but having just listened to Neil Degrasse Tyson's The Pluto Files I think that picture of the solar system is a bit dated. We now only recognize eight planets.
The four Terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus, The Earth and Mars.
Then the four Gas Giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
Poor little Pluto used to be thought of as the ninth planet from the sun but is now considered a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet or a plutoid.
Not that it's a very big deal but we do see our solar system a little differently now.
Nope, not too nit-picky at all. When I posted the picture, I even thought to myself 'well, Pluto's in there still, but the picture's good enough for what I want to show'. Basically, I was looking for a decent photo that kind of illustrated the question I was asking.
I feel bad for poor little Pluto. ;D My daughter loves pictures of planets, etc (anything to do with nature really) and I told her 'when I was a kid, Pluto was actually still a planet!" and her first comment was "wow mama, you're old!" ;D followed by "why isn't it one, did it want to be something else??" -- I love her questions so much. She'll be four not too long from now, and she's been asking all kinds of questions lately. Yay!
Neil Degrasse Tyson's book The Pluto Files is pretty good. He includes lots of email he's received from children who were upset with him and the Hayden Planetarium over poor little Pluto's fall from grace. I bet he'd enjoy hearing your daughters opinion. ;)
I learned something new from this thread, this is great stuff (especially, to me, the diagram of the Oort cloud, which I'd heard of but didn't really know about).
Slightly off-topic, but look at the NASA link for today - a time-lapse video of extraordinarily vibrant aurora borealis. One of the most stunning natural phenomena, IMO. I could watch that for hours.
I'm sad about Pluto. This makes no sense whatsoever, but I really wish we could keep it as a planet "for old time's sake." Once a planet, always a planet, you know? ;)
My MIL is currently reading the book How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. I want to read it after she's done.
Quote from: Ali on February 10, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
I'm sad about Pluto. This makes no sense whatsoever, but I really wish we could keep it as a planet "for old time's sake." Once a planet, always a planet, you know? ;)
My MIL is currently reading the book How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. I want to read it after she's done.
That sounds like an interesting book! I'll have to see about getting ahold of that somewhere. :)
And yeah, I'm in the 'why didn't they just let it stay a planet' camp too. :P
Although, it does kinda make me think... it's interesting that for billions of years, all of these planets, asteroids, stars etc were forming... being pulled in different directions... rearranging themselves... and then bam, out of nowhere comes these arrogant humans who not only name them, but decide what they are, or aren't. Poor planets. Maybe they wanted other names and designations. ;) ;D
Does anyone know how the plane that the planets generally orbit on around our sun, how this plane relates to the position of the centre of our galaxy?
Quote from: Stevil on February 10, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
Does anyone know how the plane that the planets generally orbit on around our sun, how this plane relates to the position of the centre of our galaxy?
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/31176/449781.aspx
I've heard people wonder why it gets dark at night when there are so many things in the universe give off light. This is something I've wondered about but didn't know the answer to and felt a little dumb asking. Today I read a really great answer:
The universe had a beginning, about fifteen billion years ago. Space may be infinite, but time had a start. Because light travels at a finite velocity, there is a limit to the part of the universe that we can see. We can't see galaxies that are more than fifteen billion light-years away because there hasn't been enough time for their light to reach us. Even if the universe is infinitely big, the part of it that we can observe is finite, and therefore the number of stars and galaxies we can observe are finite -- and this is the ture resolution of Olber's paradox. The night sky is dark because the universe is young! Chet Raymo, in Natural Prayers
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 03:21:36 AM
I've heard people wonder why it gets dark at night when there are so many things in the universe give off light.
The fact that we have night time is one of the proofs of the Big Bang. In an infinity old universe thats full of billions of galaxies, each one filled with billions of stars, the earth should be bathed in light in all places and at all times.
Quote from: Amicale on February 10, 2012, 06:02:35 PM
Although, it does kinda make me think... it's interesting that for billions of years, all of these planets, asteroids, stars etc were forming... being pulled in different directions... rearranging themselves... and then bam, out of nowhere comes these arrogant humans who not only name them, but decide what they are, or aren't. Poor planets. Maybe they wanted other names and designations. ;) ;D
Don't you know the planets were whispering their names before their finders ever thought to look?
Quote from: Ali on February 10, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
I'm sad about Pluto. This makes no sense whatsoever, but I really wish we could keep it as a planet "for old time's sake." Once a planet, always a planet, you know? ;)
Some people seem destined to break up wonderful things
Ye these things they hurt, why do some have to follow such long and winding eccentric orbits?
I suppose you just have to let it be. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJAzIv.png&hash=b2a9891e1572d5ecb61c583d11a0f120fc6a7505)
Speaking of dropping Pluto... what are we to do about Sagan's message that clearly presents Pluto as a planet? We can't exactly recall it now. I wonder if the aliens will also be upset about Pluto.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcassiopaea.org%2Fimages%2Fvoyagermsg.jpg&hash=7418bf310375ab95741331dabe60ec4d0a386fa2)