Orientation of the Earth, Sun and Solar System in the Milky Way

[Loki sullivan]

It's important to bear in mind the scale of what you are describing. The Galaxy is around 1000LY thick and the solar system is only about 30 AU across (1AU is around 1/6000 LY). So the solar system is minute in terms of the layout of the galaxy. The "Galactic Plane" is far too fuzzy to use the geometry that you seem to be using. The 'tilt' of the plane of the ecliptic relative the the galactic plane is a pretty random and irrelevant quantity.

I was more interested in which angle the tilt of the Earth (celestial axis) is compared to the galactic plane. It would appear to tilt outward away from the galactic center more than it does north or south of the galactic plane. I assume this because the winter/summer solstice are at or near the galactic plane at this time and equinoxes are above and below the galactic plane. Does this sound correct? Just trying to give myself a relative perspective.

 

[sophiecentaur]

But, whatever it is, it's surely just arbitrary. There will be systems with an ecliptic that is almost at right angles to the galactic plane, systems that are right near the lateral edge etc. etc. so what would make their orientation of any interest at all?
This is a bit like numerology, which takes two items and tries to link them by some numbers.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I was more interested in which angle the tilt of the Earth (celestial axis) is compared to the galactic plane.

Don't the fig. 2 and fig. 3 in post #1 answer this question? The angles given are between axes or planes, but it's just a matter of subtracting them from 90 degrees if you want an angle between an axis and a plane.
In this particular case, it looks like you're looking at 90-62.9=27.1 degrees.

It would appear to tilt outward away from the galactic center more than it does north or south of the galactic plane.

I think you're describing the angle between the celestial axis (celestial north) and the galactic plane, but it's larger not smaller than the previous one (it's the 62.9 degrees from before).

If these are not the angles you mean, can you try and clarify which ones you have in mind?

 

[Janus]

Don't the fig. 2 and fig. 3 in post #1 answer this question? The angles given are between axes or planes, but it's just a matter of subtracting them from 90 degrees if you want an angle between an axis and a plane.
In this particular case, it looks like you're looking at 90-62.9=27.1 degrees.

I think you're describing the angle between the celestial axis (celestial north) and the galactic plane, but it's larger not smaller than the previous one (it's the 62.9 degrees from before).

If these are not the angles you mean, can you try and clarify which ones you have in mind?

I think the issue he has with the diagram is with where the nodes between the ecliptic and celestial planes are located. In the diagram, the Earth is shown as being near the winter solstice, but the direction the Earth's axis is shown as pointing, relative to the direction of the Sun, looks closer to what you would expect during an equinox.

 

[Loki sullivan]

I think the issue he has with the diagram is with where the nodes between the ecliptic and celestial planes are located. In the diagram, the Earth is shown as being near the winter solstice, but the direction the Earth's axis is shown as pointing, relative to the direction of the Sun, looks closer to what you would expect during an equinox.

Yes this was my intent. I may not have expressed that clearly. I was simply trying to discover the angle of the earth’s Celestial axis in relation to the direction of the travel of the sun. I may have complicated the question by using a inprecise variable such as galactic plane. I am assuming since the Earth is near galactic plane (as illustrated) at the time of summer solstice, then the axial tilt of the Earth would be in the direction of the sun and not to the galactic north. Is this a correct assumption? I’m not criticizing the great work. I am just trying to clarify my understanding of the earth’s orientation in relation to the sun’s direction of travel.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I am assuming since the Earth is near galactic plane (as illustrated) at the time of summer solstice, then the axial tilt of the Earth would be in the direction of the sun and not to the galactic north.

Ah. You're right. Well spotted. It does look like it's pointing in the wrong direction, and should indeed be deflected towards the reader rather than in the plane of the picture.
Maybe @fizixfan will stop by and take a shot at correcting it. Although I imagine it might be difficult to render it clearly in two dimensions.

 

[fizixfan]

I am assuming since the Earth is near galactic plane (as illustrated) at the time of summer solstice, then the axial tilt of the Earth would be in the direction of the sun and not to the galactic north.

I've been following this thread since Loki sullivan started posting, but I've been unable to fully understand what's being said. This may not answer your question, but the Earth's Axis of Rotation is tilted "away" from the Sun in the Winter, which is why it gets colder in the Northern Hemisphere during winter (you probably already know that), and tilted "toward" the Sun in the Northern Hemisphere in the Summer. The Earth is also situated between the Sun and the Galactic Center in the summer (Sun - Earth - Galactic Center). That's why we have such great viewing of the Milky Way in the summer months - because the Sun isn't in the way at night and we're looking toward the Galactic Center. In winter the Sun is between the Earth and Galactic Center (Earth-Sun-Galactic Center), so no viewing of the Milky Way in Winter from the NH.

The Earth, in a physical sense, is about 50 light years north of the Galactic Equator, so change in position of 186 million miles from over the course of a year isn't going to change our position with respect to the Galactic Plane. What does change is our point of view, since we are on a tilted, spinning sphere orbiting the sun.

The axial tilt of the Earth does not vary relative to the Galactic North on a seasonal basis or even during a human lifetime - although it does precess (Google that term if necessary). But for the purposes of this discussion let's just say the North Celestial Pole (Earth's Axis of Rotation) and the North Galactic Pole (Milky Way's Axis of Rotation) do not vary. The angle between the NCP and NGP is 62.9°, although this can only be determined using spherical trigonometry, since the Celestial Equator, Ecliptic Plane and Galactic Plane do not intersect at a single point. See Figures 2 and 3 in my original post. I'm including another crude drawing I did that may help. Words are really kind of hopeless in explaining three different celestial coordinate systems - which is why I prefer pictures.

It might also help if you read all the posts in this thread, but especially, I would encourage you to go to a place where there are dark skies during the summer months and look up. I recently purchased a telescope for my camera, and have found some amateur astrophotographers to hang out with. I would also recommend uploading Stellarium - a free planetarium program for your PC, and Skywatch for you mobile device.

 

[Loki sullivan]

I've been following this thread since Loki sullivan started posting, but I've been unable to fully understand what's being said. This may not answer your question, but the Earth's Axis of Rotation is tilted "away" from the Sun in the Winter, which is why it gets colder in the Northern Hemisphere during winter (you probably already know that), and tilted "toward" the Sun in the Northern Hemisphere in the Summer. The Earth is also situated between the Sun and the Galactic Center in the summer (Sun - Earth - Galactic Center). That's why we have such great viewing of the Milky Way in the summer months - because the Sun isn't in the way at night and we're looking toward the Galactic Center. In winter the Sun is between the Earth and Galactic Center (Earth-Sun-Galactic Center), so no viewing of the Milky Way in Winter from the NH.

The Earth, in a physical sense, is about 50 light years north of the Galactic Equator, so change in position of 186 million miles from over the course of a year isn't going to change our position with respect to the Galactic Plane. What does change is our point of view, since we are on a tilted, spinning sphere orbiting the sun.

The axial tilt of the Earth does not vary relative to the Galactic North on a seasonal basis or even during a human lifetime - although it does precess (Google that term if necessary). But for the purposes of this discussion let's just say the North Celestial Pole (Earth's Axis of Rotation) and the North Galactic Pole (Milky Way's Axis of Rotation) do not vary. The angle between the NCP and NGP is 62.9°, although this can only be determined using spherical trigonometry, since the Celestial Equator, Ecliptic Plane and Galactic Plane do not intersect at a single point. See Figures 2 and 3 in my original post. I'm including another crude drawing I did that may help. Words are really kind of hopeless in explaining three different celestial coordinate systems - which is why I prefer pictures.

View attachment 227104

It might also help if you read all the posts in this thread, but especially, I would encourage you to go to a place where there are dark skies during the summer months and look up. I recently purchased a telescope for my camera, and have found some amateur astrophotographers to hang out with. I would also recommend uploading Stellarium - a free planetarium program for your PC, and Skywatch for you mobile device.

Let me first say, thank you for sharing your work. I have learned much from your illustrations. As far as my inquiry, I hope you understand I am not criticizing your work but seeking clarification for my own understanding. I DO understand the axial tilt of the Earth and its affect on seasonality. My question was referring to the direction of axial tilt of the earth. In the illustration, the angle of the Earth axis in relation to galactic plane is apparent, but the axial tilt direction appears to be towards the sun when near the winter solstice. If I am understanding that the northern hemisphere is shown to the left, then wouldn’t the direction of axial tilt be away from the sun at winter solstice? It may just be a misinterpretation due to the nature of 2D renderings, so I ask for clarification for my own understanding.

 

[fizixfan]

Let me first say, thank you for sharing your work. I have learned much from your illustrations. As far as my inquiry, I hope you understand I am not criticizing your work but seeking clarification for my own understanding. I DO understand the axial tilt of the Earth and its affect on seasonality. My question was referring to the direction of axial tilt of the earth. In the illustration, the angle of the Earth axis in relation to galactic plane is apparent, but the axial tilt direction appears to be towards the sun when near the winter solstice. If I am understanding that the northern hemisphere is shown to the left, then wouldn’t the direction of axial tilt be away from the sun at winter solstice? It may just be a misinterpretation due to the nature of 2D renderings, so I ask for clarification for my own understanding.

It's the nature of the 2D rendering, I'm afraid.

 

[alantheastronomer]

Looking at the Sun's direction of travel arrow on fizixfan's 'Motion of Earth & Sun around the Milky Way' diagram, does this mean then that the solar system is orbiting the Galaxy in a clockwise direction? Also, which hemisphere of Earth's is (mostly?) facing the direction the solar system is taking during its orbit round the galactic disc? North or South? Or do they each take turns during the course of a terrestrial year? I can't quite put it all together it somehow.

You'll be interested to know that, since the Earth's equator is inclined so steeply (60.2 degrees) to the plane of the Milky Way, that there are features of the Milky Way, such as the Galactic Center and Galactic Bulge, that can only be seen from the Northern Hemisphere, and features such as the Coalsack Nebula and the small and large Magellanic Clouds, that can only be seen from the Southern Hemisphere!

 

[davenn]

that there are features of the Milky Way, such as the Galactic Center and Galactic Bulge, that can only be seen from the Northern Hemisphere

you sure about that ?

the galactic centre is in Sagittarius which comes well above the horizon in the southern hemisphere.
In fact at this time of the year, it passes right overhead
Maybe you take a trip "down under" one day and I and some other Australian astronomers will treat you to the delights of the southern skyDave

 

[davenn]

there you go one of my own pix looking straight into the core complete with bulge

Dave

 

[alantheastronomer]

Obviously I'm mistaken - Thanks for letting me know! I guess I'm not as familiar with the southern hemisphere as I'd like to be!

 

[Janus]

You'll be interested to know that, since the Earth's equator is inclined so steeply (60.2 degrees) to the plane of the Milky Way, that there are features of the Milky Way, such as the Galactic Center and Galactic Bulge, that can only be seen from the Northern Hemisphere, and features such as the Coalsack Nebula and the small and large Magellanic Clouds, that can only be seen from the Southern Hemisphere!

Here's the relationship between the Celestial Equator, Galactic Equator, and Ecliptic.

The white grid are celestial coordinates and the light blue grid galactic coordinates.
Note that the Galactic Center is ~29 degrees South of the Celestial equator. This means that it is visible in the entire Southern Hemisphere and not visible for points above ~61 degrees North Latitude. The ecliptic crosses the Galactic equator ~6.5 degrees from the Galactic center and the Celestial equator crosses the galactic equator 33 degrees from the galactic center along the galactic equator.

 

[alantheastronomer]

Thanks, Janus - Are there any parts of the Milky Way that aren't observable from the Southern Hemisphere?

 

[davenn]

Are there any parts of the Milky Way that aren't observable from the Southern Hemisphere?

Not really, as you can see from my pic. you can see it from one thin end on the left, through the centre and out to the thin end on the right side

What we don't see from the southern hemisphere are the constellations that are well away from the galactic plane ... ie. close to the north celestial pole

Ursa Major and minor, Cassiopeia, Draco, Cepheus, Hercules ... to name a fewDave

 

[Ovidiu]

Hello

Thanks for all the posts. I would like to ask for some clarifications, if possible.
Here some images:

So, from Europe during summer, if I look at SagittA, the solar system is moving toward left (as do all the spiral arms). So, if I take a view-angle like in the second image, and clear my perception from local stars, voila, the "clouds" remain. They are in fact "curved", but we see them from inside the "tunnel", so to say. But, I can almost say that the curvature is perceivable, after I have trained my attention.

This is what I am uncertain of:

1. What do we really see in the left side of the Milky Way, are these light clouds the spiral arms?
2. If we move approx. toward Vega, how is that the SagittA and Vega are so close to each other in the sky? I suppose this is because Vega is so close, and galactic center is so so far away?

Thank you

Ovidiu

 

[Bandersnatch]

Hi, Ovidiu. Welcome to PF.

2. If we move approx. toward Vega, how is that the SagittA and Vega are so close to each other in the sky? I suppose this is because Vega is so close, and galactic center is so so far away?

They're roughly 70 degrees apart. Sgr A and the nearby Deneb are full 90 degrees apart. Deneb roughly points to the direction at a right angle with the direction towards the centre of the galaxy. 70 degrees is not that far from being half way through to the other side of the sky from Sgr A, so I'm not sure it counts as being close to each other.
If you're only looking at it through a planetarium software, then the separations on the sky may appear warped, especially if you zoom out. Try going out at night, and pointing towards both with each arm. Note the angle your arms make.

The radial distance to Vega vs Sgr A doesn't play any part in their angular separation. If you imagine looking at Vega, and then - in your mind - pushing it ten or a hundred times farther along the line of sight, it would not move from the same point in the sky. So distance can't play a role.

Btw, the difference between 90 degrees towards Deneb and 70 towards Vega comes from Sun's peculiar motion - i.e., its local velocity, unrelated to its orbital velocity.

Also, keep in mind these are not precise directions. Best to think of Cygnus/Lyra/Hercules as a 'roughly there' direction of motion, rather than pointing to anyone star as the direction.

 

[Ovidiu]

Hello Bandersnatch

Thank you for your clarifications. Indeed, I perceive a difference, but seemed less than 70 degrees as I remember from last nights.
This is what I see, then? (just for orientation)

Looks like I have to wait until next clear night to look at this angle again, but I do remember this angle as 45 sort of, that's why it puzzled me.

Now, regarding my other question, about what we see.
I still cannot visualise this fact - so, we are moving toward Deneb-Vega
that means
- left of this area is just Perseus Arm? or?
- and in the right of Vega, then those "clouds" are in fact... 4-5-6 layers over layers?

I wonder if there is somewhere a scientifically correct image, using the perspective as in the image above?
I need to perceive-understand what I see, with arrows to show more reference points regarding the "spiral arms name", and also to show "the curvature" and the "layering" and the "Sun direction of movement"?

This is the best video I found, but it doesn't show the curvature of the spiral arms


Thank you
O.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding your pictures.
For example, in the first picture in your post #89, the approx 70 degree angle is between the directions that you marked with the wide red arrow towards the galactic centre, and the thin red arrow towards Vega. Not the much smaller angle between the two blue lines - which I'm not sure what are indicating.
The angle between the centre and Deneb should be a right angle.

Judging by how you've superimposed the image of the galactic arms onto the snapshot of the sky in the second picture in that post, it looks like you're making the mistake of not placing yourself inside the galaxy. You would not see all the arms (the entire galaxy) contained within the span of one night-sky (<180 degrees), since you are observing it from the inside. You'll see the galaxy all around you - including the parts of the sky below the horizon.

The band of the Milky Way is made of stars and dust contained mostly in the arms, but it is unlikely you'll be able to discern which arm you're seeing. In rough terms, if you look away from the galactic centre, you see the material in our arm, and in the Perseus arm. Looking towards the galactic centre, you'll see some combination of material in all the arms along your line of sight. There is no real way of separating material from one arm from another, just by eyeballing it, while sitting inside the galactic disc.

I'm still not sure we're not talking past each other, and if we do, then I apologize.

 

[Ovidiu]

Yes, we are on the same track :-) Thank you

The blue lines are just to show that what I perceived after some hours with "depths-wavey-rods-related" attention. The blue bubbles are what I perceived that may form curved spiral arms/structures of some sort. I know I am in the same plane as the arms :-)

The idea is that... loooking at the Milky Way... after some time, my visual perception can sense the difference between the light of the stars and the diffuse light from the far away arms. I see the clouds, but I also.. feel the curvature. It is because of the experiences with DMT and also, http://www.consciousness-quotient.com/entheogenic-insights-some-methods-to-access-and-consciously-use-the-psychedelic-visions-without-exogenous-psychedelics/:-)

So, my experience is that I can perceive some curvature there, and my only working hypothesis is that... these bubbles-clouds of light seem to be curved following these ripples, as they are described below by some scientists. I cannot discern by analyzing light, but by feeling the curved energy-ripples.

This is how I do it - In order to activate this ultra-perception of depths, my energy enters in a hypersynchrony, and I get an amazing sensitivity. Our eyes are amazing, e.g. for some months I watched the sky only with one eye and trained my perception of "depths", to detect which objects are closer which are far, and in what order. So, maybe it is possible to do a some sort of triangulation even inside of one eye, by re-programming the perception. I heard about people who lose sight of one eye... the other eye compensate by naturally increase the sensitivity. But that's another discussion.

Maybe it looks impossible, but it is a matter of training and developing the sensitivity to light. And to be able to selectively use information only from some types of light receptors. Still, I need science to adjust my perception, it is not clear, because perhaps I use the rods-perception. So, the 3 dots I draw with blue is what I perceive. I thought they are arms, but after I discovered about the ripples and recently about density waves, I thought... this cannot be. I mean, whaaat? :-)
The arms are exactly in the position of the density waves, they say. And rods are very good at sensing densities, this is my current explanation of this perceptual vision.

So, the reason I am asking these things here is because I experience what you say it is impossible.
"There is no real way of separating material from one arm from another, just by eyeballing it, while sitting inside the galactic disc."
You know, maybe it is natural to the eye to do some sort of triangulation inside the retina. Maybe the distance is just some milimeters, but... the receptors can perceive a single photon, they say. I presume that in these high-energy-synchrony-experiences-DMT-like, my brain don't filter out these weak signals and they become conscious and I can play with them by ading them in a conscious way to the current perceptual vision. So, perhaps I use cones for close stars (and there is a very good perception of depths based on light differences), and for the "clouds" I use rods, and the "curvature" becomes available.

Thanks again
O.

 

[Ovidiu]

Bandersnatch, here is an exercise for depths-perception:

I cover one eye, and look at the full moon through the window There are 3 layers ar least. One is the moon, the other is the reflection of the moon in the windows, the third is the image on the retina. They are over-imposed, but I can detect that the reflection in the window is veeery close compared to the distance where the physical moon is. And the retina is closer.

Then, I select mainly the light from the physical moon and look at it and merge with it. And voila, I get a clear perception of the physical moon. The halo in the window is also there, but I don't care about it, I select only the light from the moon to configure my experience. It is a selective use of samyama (or full absorption, as described in Yoga Sutra).

The brain is smart at composing 3D images by using these depths-mechanisms, it is just a matter of consciously choosing what the "feed" is :-)

O.

 

[rootone]

It's possible to measure light and apply computation to figure out what is there, without a need to invoke perception or consciousness.

 

[Stig H]

Love this thread! Does anyone know the Sun's orbit inclination relative to the galactic plane? If it "wobbles" then this will vary, but there must be an average inclination?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Love this thread! Does anyone know the Sun's orbit inclination relative to the galactic plane? If it "wobbles" then this will vary, but there must be an average inclination?
If you look at the Milky Way, on a clear, dark night, you see it as a diagonal line from Northish to Southish and that’s the plane of the Galaxy. OTOH the Moon, Sun and planets follow a broad East West band. That’s the plane of the ecliptic and the Sun’s axis is near normal to that plane. So they are different.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I had a problem with the above thread. It refused to treat the quote as a quote and then wouldn’t let me edit, either.
Weird.

 

[Janus]

Love this thread! Does anyone know the Sun's orbit inclination relative to the galactic plane? If it "wobbles" then this will vary, but there must be an average inclination?

There isn't really an orbital plane that the Sun strictly follows. It bobs up and down across the galactic plane several times per galactic orbit like this.

If you average this out, it follows the galactic plane.
The bobbing up and down is due to the same type of effect you would get if you drilled a hole from North to South pole and dropped an object into it. It would travel back and forth through the hole in a harmonic motion.

With the Sun, as it gets above the galactic plane, there is more disk matter "below" it, and it is pulled back towards the plane. It overshoots, and passes below the plane, and now more disk matter is above it, pulling it again back towards the plane, which it overshoots... rinse and repeat.

 

[fizixfan]

There isn't really an orbital plane that the Sun strictly follows. It bobs up and down across the galactic plane several times per galactic orbit like this.
View attachment 233686
If you average this out, it follows the galactic plane.
The bobbing up and down is due to the same type of effect you would get if you drilled a hole from North to South pole and dropped an object into it. It would travel back and forth through the hole in a harmonic motion.

With the Sun, as it gets above the galactic plane, there is more disk matter "below" it, and it is pulled back towards the plane. It overshoots, and passes below the plane, and now more disk matter is above it, pulling it again back towards the plane, which it overshoots... rinse and repeat.

Your description of the Sun's motion around the Milky Way is spot on, but the oft-used graphic (Medvedev 2007) used to illustrate it has a couple of errors. First, it shows the galaxy rotating clockwise (which is correct, with Galactic North as "up"), but the Sun is going in the wrong direction. It should be orbiting clockwise and not counterclockwise given the initial conditions of the diagram. The sinusoidal motion around the galaxy is also way out of scale. The Sun is about 26,000 light years from the center of the galaxy, and "bobs" above and below the galactic equator by a distance of about 250 light years in each direction. This means its northward and southward excursions above and below the galactic equator would only subtend and angle of about 0.55 degrees in each direction. It's hard to show these things to scale, but in my opinion, Medvedev got the direction of the sun's orbit backwards. Unfortunately, this diagram keeps being used, kind of like the erroneous "helical" model proposed by DJSadhu and now used and quoted by many. I've added a couple of diagrams of my own to try and make the Sun's orbit and motion easier to visualize.

 

[phyzguy]

I keep pointing out that the sun's motion around the Milky Way is not an "orbit" in the sense that we usually think of it. It is not even a closed curve. Orbits in a central potential like the solar system are closed curves, but orbits in a potential well like the Milky Way's are typically not. Even if the Milky Way's potential were static in time the orbit would not be a closed curve, and it is definitely not static in time. So it is best to think of the sun's motion as an approximate orbit, where each path around the Milky Way is a different curve.

 

[rootone]

While the galaxy does have an overall angular momentum, which the solar system goes with,
This is not like a planet orbiting a star, whose motion is highly predictable.
The solar system is part of a local cluster of stars, and the clusters are components of yet larger clusters.
Those clusters constitute the macro scale structures of spiral arms and a central bulge.
The dynamics of this for an individual star is completely unpredictable,
even to the point that a star could get ejected from the galaxy in a case of very bad luck.

 

[fizixfan]

I keep pointing out that the sun's motion around the Milky Way is not an "orbit" in the sense that we usually think of it. It is not even a closed curve. Orbits in a central potential like the solar system are closed curves, but orbits in a potential well like the Milky Way's are typically not. Even if the Milky Way's potential were static in time the orbit would not be a closed curve, and it is definitely not static in time. So it is best to think of the sun's motion as an approximate orbit, where each path around the Milky Way is a different curve.

No argument there - I agree that the sun won’t return to the same place in another 230 million years or so for the reasons you have noted. “Approximate orbit” is a more accurate term than just “orbit.” In a sense though, the Earth doesn’t return to the same spot either after one trip around the sun since it is moving through both space and time.

I have amended my diagram so that it doesn't show the sun’s orbit as a closed curve.

But the original intent in my previous post was to point out that the sun moves in unison with our rotating galaxy - not against it, and that its up and down motion is relatively very small.

 

[sophiecentaur]

While the galaxy does have an overall angular momentum, which the solar system goes with,
This is not like a planet orbiting a star, whose motion is highly predictable.

Predictability is something that people tend to assume and we have had a very short fraction of a period in which to observe any motions outside the Solar System. We have been making 'fairly' accurate observations for less than a hundred years yet making predictions about many thousands of years in the future. They must be a bit speculative, surely.
Even motion within the Solar System is subject to Chaos so I have to wonder about the accuracy of predictions with the galactic many-body problem.
(Not that it really matters to us, of course.)

 

[Cataclysmo]

I've been tinkering with a few diagrams in an attempt to illustrate the motion of the solar system in its journey around the Milky Way. I also wanted portray how the celestial, ecliptic and galactic coordinate systems are related to each other in a single picture. Note: in the Celestial, or Equatorial system, the Celestial North Pole (an extension of the Earth's axis of rotation), uses the default setting of North as "up." The Ecliptic and Galactic also use North as "up" with reference to the Celestial North Pole. Some people say that in space there is no such thing as "up" or "down," but in determining the position of a celestial object (e.g., declination and right ascension of a star or deep-sky object) is DOES matter.

Please have a look at these diagrams and feel free to comment on any errors, or make suggestions as to how I could make them better. I drew these images, but anyone is free to re-use them without restriction.

Figure 1 shows the motion of the Earth and Sun around the Milky Way. The solar system is actually well within the galactic disk, which is about 1,000 light years thick. The sun and the planets that circle it is roughly 50 light years above the galactic plane, and passed northward through it about 3 million years ago in its undulating path around the galactic center. Note: this diagram is not to scale. The northernmost excursion of the solar system takes it about 250 light years above the galactic plane. This means it would only subtend an angle of about 0.55° relative to the galactic center.

Figure 1. Motion of Earth and Sun around the Milky Way

View attachment 107278

Figures 2. and 3. show the orientation of the Earth, Sun & Solar System in the Milky Way - similar diagrams, just presented in different ways.

Figure 2. Orientation of Celestial, Ecliptic and Galactic Poles and Planes

View attachment 107279

Figure 3. Orientation of astronomical coordinates projected on the Celestial Sphere.

View attachment 107280The angle between Celestial Equator (an imaginary plane passing through the Earth's equator) and the Ecliptic Plane (an imaginary plane extended through the Sun's equator) is 23.4°. The angle between the North Celestial Pole (an imaginary line extending through Earth's axis of rotation) and the North Ecliptic Pole (an imaginary line extending through the Sun's axis of rotation) is the same - 23.4°. This is the familiar value for the "tilt" of the Earth in its path around the Sun.

The angle between the Ecliptic Plane and the Galactic Equator (an imaginary plane passing through, and parallel to, the disk of the Milky Way) is 60.2°. The angle between the North Ecliptic Pole and the North Galactic Pole (an imaginary line extending through the Milky Way's axis of rotation) is also 60.2°.

The angle between the Celestial Equator and the Galactic Equator is 62.9°, as is the angle between the North Celestial Pole and the North Galactic Pole.

These three angles = 23.4°, 60.2° and 62.9° cannot be shown or calculated in two dimensions, because they represent separate planes which do not intersect at a common point. If you look at Figure 3, you can see that this is so.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_coordinate_system#Galactic_system
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0932/
http://www.engineeringanddesign.com/1/054.htm

I believe this is why we have shorter days in the winter but the moon is out longer at night and the opposite in the summer. Thoughts?

 

[sophiecentaur]

The relative angles of the Earth’s tilt and the plane of the Moon’s orbit are only affected very slightly by our Galactic situation. The height of the Moon in the sky over the year doesn’t change a lot. In winter, the Moon is seen for more hours against a dark sky than in summer. Is that what you mean by “out”? A ‘pale’ moon can be seen in a light sky in summer for many hours.

 

[Cataclysmo]

The relative angles of the Earth’s tilt and the plane of the Moon’s orbit are only affected very slightly by our Galactic situation. The height of the Moon in the sky over the year doesn’t change a lot. In winter, the Moon is seen for more hours against a dark sky than in summer. Is that what you mean by “out”? A ‘pale’ moon can be seen in a light sky in summer for many hours.

Thanks for your response. Yes the big picture of this thread is in regards to the position of the solar system relative to the mid plane of the Galaxy. I hope this discussion is still relevant and not deviating too far.

I'm focusing in on the celestial plain and lunar plain relative to earth. It seems the celestial plane and lunar plain are tilted in opposite directions leading to the trend of the Moon passing higher through the sky during winter nights and the sun passing lower in the sky during winter days. Yes, like you said longer hours of moonlight in the winter. I'm speaking from a northern hemisphere reference and also I'm curious if this is naturally also applicable for the southern hemisphere? Hope this isn't coming across as a homework question but actually as in sincere curiosity the heavenly bodies.
Kindest Regards