>aren't most galaxies disc shaped?

Uhmm... "yes and no". Most galaxies are disk shaped, but most stars in the universe are in elliptical galaxies, which are "blob-shaped". Elliptical galaxies are really huge, so a relatively small number of them really dominate. For example, the relatively nearby M87 is 200x the mass of the Milky Way.

​

>Not very hard to imagine that since gravity is the force that rules over galaxies, solar systems and planets, then the distribution of stars around the massive object in the galaxy, the distribution of planets around a star, and the rings around a planet, is all from the same force,

Uhmm... "yes and no". Gravity is king, but there is also gas pressure.

This happens to be my area of research, so I hope you won't mind if I take a tangent:

In a pure N-body system with no gas, the long-term evolution is that close encounters between massive particles (e.g. planets, stars) cause random perturbations to the orbits, so over the the system approaches the shape of a blob. You can see this in globular clusters inside the Milky Way, and you see it in elliptical galaxies.

The reason disk galaxies and planetary systems don't look like that is that they were originally made from a gas cloud. In a gas cloud, gas particles collide with each other, and that tends to remove the random motions. So you are left with only the average motion, corresponding to the "net" angular momentum of the system. And that's how you get those clean, flat disks. The disk around a black hole is the same.

Gravity Only = Blob

Gravity + Gas = Disk

Today the solar system has almost no gas, and the Milky Way has already used up 99% of its gas. But because the planets and the stars were born in the gas, their present orbits reflect the shape of that gas. But if you look within the Milky Way, you will see that the oldest stars have more random orbits, making a thicker disk than the one made by the youngest stars. These are in fact called the thick disk and the thin disk.

Oh, and I just thought of another example. The galactic bulge of the Milky Way has a very large star density and it is very old, and that's why it looks like a blob. It's like a mini elliptical galaxy.

​

>Maybe if the massive thing at the middle wasn't rotating it wouldn't spread out into a disc, i'm no astrophysician.

I mean this in the kindest possible way: The term is "astrophysicist".

A physician is a type of doctor (what can I say? English makes no sense).

A physicist is a scientist that studies physics.

>most stars within their own galaxies are lined up in a plane though

( Let's agree that you meant to say "disk galaxies" )

The spin axis vectors of the stars, and their planetary systems, are NOT at all aligned with any particular plane. They are essentially random. Take the Solar System for example. The plane of the solar system is inclined 63 degrees with respect to the galactic plane.

Allow me to reiterate my comment:

while the galaxy as a whole is roughly on a plane, and almost every planetary system is roughly on a plane, those are not all the same plane

This is precisely correct. If you specifically want to say that the positions of stars are aligned in a plane... well... that's basically the definition of a disk galaxy. A disk galaxy is a type of galaxy in which stellar orbits are roughly aligned on a plane.

>Why is it happening so? Sounds way to simple to be true in something so complicated as space. Even electrons have 3-dimensional orbits but planets somehow don’t?

Astronomer here:

I would like to clarify that, while each planetary system is on a plane, and the galaxy is on a plane, they are not all the same plane. The planes of the planetary systems are essentially random, and not aligned with the galaxy. Our own solar system is not aligned with the galaxy either.

The reason why spiral galaxies and planetary systems come out in planes has to do with the fact that they are all born from a gas cloud. Any initial gas cloud has some initial angular momentum. As it collapses by its own self-gravity, it has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. This by itself is not enough to make the gas form a disk. The last ingredient is that gas in space actually behaves like gas ---- it feels pressure, it emits energy. So the initial gas cloud is a "blob" with a lot of random motions, pressure (think gas drag) dissipates most of the random motions, leaving only the "average" motion, which would be a rotation in some direction corresponding to the net initial angular momentum of the blob.

Stars in the galaxy are on a plane because stars from form the gas, and the gas was on a plane. Planets are on a plane, because planets form from the gas (well, Earth forms from the 1% of dust inside the gas) and the gas is on a plane.

>Fun fact. Same is true for the milky way, other star systems.

In the interest of clarity, while the galaxy as a whole is roughly on a plane, and almost every planetary system is roughly on a plane, those are not all the same plane. The planes of planetary systems are essentially random, and do not align with that of the galaxy.

>But... dark matter also doesn't interact with normal matter, so how would it create friction?

Dark matter interacts via gravity. Dynamical friction is a byproduct of gravity. When you have a large massive body inside a sea of much smaller particles, the large body's gravity changes the orbits of the particles near it in a way that creates an overdensity of small particles behind the large object. That overdensity creates a gravitational pull from those particles, in the direction opposite to the body's motion. Therefore, it behaves similar to a friction force.

Dynamical friction happens in any N-body system with a sea of "small" particles and some large particles. For example, it is the reason why supermassive black holes have to always be at the center of their galaxy. Dynamical friction with the stars would bring them in.

Tell her that the two upcoming big telescopes are both named after women scientists:

• The Vera Rubin Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory). Vera Rubin was the person that discovered dark matter in galaxies --- that galaxies rotate "too fast".
• The Nancy Roman Space Telescope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope). Nancy Roman was the Chief of Astronomy at NASA.

I have an idea:

Find a scientist who is already using high altitude balloons for science and just ask them if they'll let you piggyback your GoPro. Try to work out a deal. I can even give you a concrete example:

https://www.ehamden.org/fireball-1

Prof. Erika Hamden is an astronomer at the university of Arizona. She is part of a team that is planning to attach a telescope to a giant balloon and send it to the stratosphere to take images in UV. Your GoPro is absolutely tiny compared to that telescope. To be clear, I've never met Erika. I just happen to know about the project because I'm also an astronomer and I saw a talk about it recently. She seems approachable. Who knows? If you are very persuasive, maybe they'll let you attach your GoPro to their telescope in exchange for some sort of publicity or something.

Even if this specific lead doesn't work out, you can apply the general idea. There are a gazillion astronomers and Earth scientists launching balloons. You don't care which way they're going; you just want to go "up". If you email enough of them, maybe one of them will say "what the hell, why not."

I am an astronomer, and I feel that this would not be a factor in my equation. I would pick the position that gives me the most resources to accomplish interesting science. My peers do not evaluate me based on whether I am a "leading figure" in an agency. They evaluate me on my scientific accomplishment. So I want a large research grant that gives me plenty of time on a computer cluster (if I was an observer I would be asking for telescope time) and a research team of clever and motivated postdocs to conduct amazing science.

Yeah. I'm just summarizing the science. The OP (and you) are invited to come up with different words. The point is that there are roughly five types of bodies that orbit a star that themselves are not a star:

• Bodies similar to asteroids, comets and KBOs
• Bodies similar to Mars
• Bodies similar to Earth and Venus
• Bodies similar to Uranus and Neptune
• Bodies similar to Jupiter and Saturn

The interested reader is welcome to assign them names if they wish.

As an astronomer that works on planet formation, I think that ad-hoc dynamical definitions (both yours and that of the IAU) are a terrible idea and a waste of everyone's time. The names of things should tell you something about what they are:

• Starts are bodies that undergo fusion (or at least did some at some point).

To classify bodies around stars, you could consider the steps to forming a planet:

• When a star is young it is surrounded by a disk of gas and dust.
• Dust forms 1-100 km bodies. Call them planetesimals, asteroids, KBOs, comets, etc.
• Planetesimals collide due to gravitational interactions and from Mars-size bodies that we call planetary embryos.
• Embryos can collide with each other as well, though on a different timescale, and that produces rocky planets like the Earth and Venus.
• Separately, large bodies may, under certain conditions, also grow rapidly through the accretion of cm-size pebbles. It is likely that the massive cores of the giant planets formed this way.
• If the core gets massive while gas is still present, it can accrete a large gas envelope around 10% of the planet's mass, and that gives you an ice giant like Uranus and Neptune.
• Under certain conditions, the planet can enter a runaway accretion of gas and instead produce a true gas giant like Jupiter and Saturn.

Therefore, based on what the bodies actually are and how they form:

• Asteroids and comets are planetsimals.
• Mars is an Embryo.
• Venus and Earth are another type of body; call it a rocky planet.
• Uranus and Neptune are another type of body; call it an ice giant.
• Jupiter and Saturn are another type of body; call it a gas giant.

I think I lost a few IQ points just from reading this.

>What I'm asking is if this particular website is actually a fucking scam, or is just selling the process.
>
>Some of these sites are legitimate scams where they literally make up a star, and send you some bullshit charts.

I will sell you Polaris. I will be selling you the process. I will not make up a star, it's definitely going to be Polaris.

>Thank you for the incredible lack of help

I am being 100% helpful. Just because you do not like reality does not mean it is not helpful.

Ask yourself, in all honesty, how is my offer to sell you Polaris any worse than that website you are asking about. Serious question. You know that it's not official either way, and you know that Polaris is in the north and easy to observe. My offer meets every requirement you laid out with flying colors. If my offer sounds absurd to you, then ask yourself why some other website would be better.

>What I'm saying is some of these websites just claim they've named a star

That's what all of them do.

​

>This particular site tho, only does 3 types of stars, specifically north America,

How is a star in north America different from a star in Europe, or a Russia, or China? All of them are in the northern hemisphere.

If you want, I will name Polaris after your gf. I'll charge $75. Guaranteed to be in "North America".

Seriously though, why don't you pick your own star then? Pick a nice star in the northern hemisphere and print your own piece of paper saying that it's yours.

If you already know it's not official, then I'm not sure what question you are asking. I don't have to click on it to tell you that it's bullshit. A random dude put up a website and wants your money. What else do you need to know?

If you want, send me 100 bucks and I will name any star you want after you. And at least I am an astronomer. I'll save the name on a spreadsheet on Google drive.