Is there a relationship between the planetary disk and the disk of our galaxy?

There's a tendency for the planes to be similar due to Coriolis force from the gravitational gradient of the galaxy but impacts tend to cause random deviations much as our planets rotations have similar tilts and directions but with a few variations. Planets whose orbital plane is parallel to the galactic disk are easier to detect by transits and doppler wobble while planets whose orbital planes are tangential to the galactic plane are easier to detect by visual wobble. The relationship doesn't limit how many planets it is possible to detect because we have more than one verified technique to detect exoplanets.

<QUOTE>Is there a relationship between the planetary disk and the disk of our galaxy?</QUOTE>

No. One is from the leftovers from the formation of *one* star, the other is the set of *all* the stars in that galaxy.

What I *PRESUME* (but correct me if I'm wrong) is why would those two structures look similar at such different scales. It has to do with dynamics, and more specifically to a conservation law called "conservation of angular momentum", from which you can explain why a rotating system under a gravitational potential would form a disk. If you haven't learnt about it in high school, you will learn it if you attend the first year of a college physics undegratuate course.

<QUOTE>Do the planetary disks for most solar systems in the galaxy form oriented in the same plane as the Galaxy itself?</QUOTE>

No. The orientation of the planetary disk's rotation axis has to do with local effects (perturbation from neighbours) than with the whole galaxy.

In fact, you'll notice that the coordinate system known as galactic coordinate system is pretty much slanted relative to the ecliptic (the "plane" on which the Earth orbits the Sun, and around which most material in the solar system orbits the Sun). This coordinate system traces more or less along the Milky Way, which does not lie along the ecliptic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_coordinate_s...

<QUOTE>The Kepler Telescope depends on planets passing between between the sun it orbits and the telescope in order to be detected.</QUOTE>

Almost that. You can make direct detections from direct measurements. This transit method allows to measure the "width" of the planet, for example.

You can still measure the presence of planets (and their distances to the star, by their periods) of exoplanets by measuring the "wobble" of the host star. That's the most common method of detection. Although if the exoplanets around a star are orbiting it perpendicularly to our line of sight, we won't measure a "wobble". This wobbling is measured more accurately in direction of the star, and not "to the sides", because you're measuring the radial Doppler shift over many days or even months.

<QUOTE>Planets orbiting in a plane perpendicular to our view of that solar system will never be detected.</QUOTE>

If they do, it'll have to be done in some other clever way. For example, if it's close enough and the planet is big, you might attempt a direct detection by occulting the star (putting a "dot" on the telescope that prevents light from being seen by blocking its light) and attempt to directly "see" orbiting planets. You might have some luck with large planets, but not so much with smaller planets.

No. If it were, the band of the Milky Way would always be seen at the zenith over our equator. It isn't.

"Planets orbiting in a plane perpendicular to our view of that solar system will never be detected."

I think you've mis-interpreted that. The plane of another planet's orbit could actually be perpendicular to ours, as long as one dimension of the orbit is in line with our line of sight to that star.

Picture it this way, with the body of planet Saturn representing a star, and the rings representing the orbit of a planet. (Bear in mind that the orientation will not change in the way Saturn's orientation changes, so you don't have to think about that.) Now, if we see Saturn from the "top", with the rings fully in view, they'll never cross the line of sight to the planet. But there are other orientations where the rings (or our hypothetical planetary orbit) will be seen to cross it. If the rings are in our line of sight, then the angle they appear from horizontal doesn't matter. If Saturn were tilted about 90 degrees from the ecliptic (like Uranus) then we'd still see the rings crossing the disc of the planet. They'd just look "vertical".

properly first you ought to locate the circumference of the galaxy-solar equipment by utilising utilising 8 kiloparsecs as your radius. 2*pi*r= 2*pi*8. So the circumference of the equipment is approximately 50.2 kiloparsecs. now we'd desire to transform kiloparsecs to kilometers. a million parsec=3.3 lightyears. 3.3 lightyears=313500000000000 or (3.135x10^13) kilometers. Then we use the formulation v=d/t and rearrange to get t=d/v so the time it took could be t=31350000000000 or (3.135x10^13) km/220 km/s and we get 142500000000 or (a million.425x10^11) seconds. So the in simple terms precise answer on your question is 142500000000 or (a million.425x10^11) seconds or 2375000000 or (2.375x10^9) minutes or 40 million hours or a million.sixty 5 million days or 4518 years!!! undergo in techniques that's in undemanding terrestrial years and is not precise yet close. additionally the solar are actual around 7,500 parsecs removed from the midsection of our galaxy and it takes it approximately 250 million years to realistically orbit our galaxy. The solar does actual revolve at 220km/s too. for extra tips look at this web content in my components. desire this became into smart!

The plane of the Solar system is quite a ways off the plane of the galaxy.

Edit: 60 degrees off!

The planetary planes tend to be similar to the galactic plane, simply due to the process of their creation, but no, there is no set relationship between them.

I'm waiting for branson or somebody to give out with a flying saucer so can check it out personally & safely.