Is our study of the Cosmos northern hemishere biased?

[bdewoody]

<p>If most astronomical discoveries had been made in the southern hemishere would our maps of the universe be flipped over?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also, is our solar system basically in the same plane as the galaxy and does it rotate in the same direction?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[PaintingWithPressure]

<p>the earth rotates , it dosnt matter where you are , the stars will still be in the same place.&nbsp; So no it wouldnt be upside down.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;As for are&nbsp;solar system it rotates the same direction of the galaxy&nbsp;, it moves with everything else.&nbsp; In the same direction.&nbsp; Dont worrie are solar system wont fly out of the galaxy ...&nbsp; lol</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the earth rotates , it dosnt matter where you are , the stars will still be in the same place.&nbsp; So no it wouldnt be upside down.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As for are&nbsp;solar system it rotates the same direction of the galaxy&nbsp;, it moves with everything else.&nbsp; In the same direction.&nbsp; Dont worrie are solar system wont fly out of the galaxy ...&nbsp; lol <br />Posted by PaintingWithPressure</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Uhh, no not really.</p><p>The solar system does revolve around the center of the galaxy, in general like most of the stars in the 'hood. However, the plane of the solar system is not the same as the plane of the galaxy.</p><p>I'll have to check for the exact alignment, as I don't recall it off the top of my head<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If most astronomical discoveries had been made in the southern hemishere would our maps of the universe be flipped over?&nbsp;Also, is our solar system basically in the same plane as the galaxy and does it rotate in the same direction? <br />Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p>Well, yeah, south and north might be flipped on the maps.</p><p>For example, what we now call the north galactic pole might be called the south galactic pole. Depends on what they would have called north and south if most early astromical observations had been from there.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>However, the map itself would be unchanged, only the names would be changed to protect the innocent </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Our surveys of the galaxy are absolutely biased towards the "northern" hemisphere.&nbsp; The pole orientation is named to coincide with earth's (for the most part), but this is basically an arbitrary decision.&nbsp; It would make less sense in a way to name the galactic pole closest to our north pole the "south pole" afterall.</p><p>&nbsp;But another source of biase is that the large majority of observations are skewed toward the northern hemisphere.&nbsp; Of course, this is for a non-sinister reason, most observatories are <em>in</em> the northern hemisphere, leaving large chunks of the southern sky either completely blocked, or to low for good observation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our surveys of the galaxy are absolutely biased towards the "northern" hemisphere.&nbsp; The pole orientation is named to coincide with earth's (for the most part), but this is basically an arbitrary decision.&nbsp; It would make less sense in a way to name the galactic pole closest to our north pole the "south pole" afterall.&nbsp;But another source of biase is that the large majority of observations are skewed toward the northern hemisphere.&nbsp; Of course, this is for a non-sinister reason, most observatories are in the northern hemisphere, leaving large chunks of the southern sky either completely blocked, or to low for good observation. <br />Posted by saiph</DIV><br /><br />This is what I was getting at.&nbsp; I know the positions of things are fixed relatively. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Our surveys of the galaxy are absolutely biased towards the "northern" hemisphere.&nbsp; The pole orientation is named to coincide with earth's (for the most part), but this is basically an arbitrary decision.&nbsp; It would make less sense in a way to name the galactic pole closest to our north pole the "south pole" afterall.&nbsp;But another source of biase is that the large majority of observations are skewed toward the northern hemisphere.&nbsp; Of course, this is for a non-sinister reason, most observatories are in the northern hemisphere, leaving large chunks of the southern sky either completely blocked, or to low for good observation. <br />Posted by saiph</DIV></p><p>Well, there have been efforts to equalize things, throughout the century.</p><p>Currently Siding Springs discovers a lot of our mereoroids/asteroids. There is much more observation from the Southern Hemisphere. And now, there are observations from Antarctica. So it is getting better, but I suspect the SH will never catch up (OK, not never, give it a few decades) to the quality and quantity of NH obs.</p><p>But as I often say, every day we learn something new... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I read that the European observatory in Chile could see most of the skies because of the elevation? I tried to find the info from ESO site about the maximum viewing angle, but couldn't find it easily.</p><p>Also, a space telescope shouldn't be biased towards a certain elevation. </p>

 

[billslugg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I read that the European observatory in Chile could see most of the skies because of the elevation? I tried to find the info from ESO site about the maximum viewing angle, but couldn't find it easily.Also, a space telescope shouldn't be biased towards a certain elevation. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>If you are at either pole you can see exactly half of the sky. As you move toward the equator you see more and more until at the equator you can see 100%, except for an Earth diameter cylinder that extends in both directions to infinity.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>* until at the equator you can see 100%, except for an Earth diameter cylinder<br />*that extends in both directions to infinity.</p><p>Thanks, this ofcourse means at sealevel. <br /><br />ESO is located at the altitude of 2400m, so knowing the coordinates it would be possible to calculate the maximum theoretical viewing angle.</p><p>If you were at the equator and pointed your telescope to the north, elevation 0 degrees, or horizon, would mean blind sector of equivalent to the diameter of the earth. If you climbed to the altitude of 2400m the blind sector would be earth's diameter minus 2400 meters.&nbsp; </p><p>So going on top of a mountain does not increase your sector that much, but offers other benefits. &nbsp;</p>

 

[billslugg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> If you climbed to the altitude of 2400m the blind sector would be earth's diameter minus 2400 meters.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Once you were one inch above sea level, you now sweep a cone. You get a couple of inches up and the cone intersects a few thousand miles out.&nbsp;</p><p>Excellent observation APHH!!&nbsp; I never would have thought of that! I was subconsciously assuming a perfect sphere with an observer tangent to the sphere. Damn mountains will screw you every time! This is&nbsp; what happens when you post on a science related website without supplemental oxygen. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>