No. The Solar System is near the Sag Dwarf intersection with the Milky Way, but not in the stream.

> Is it true that our solar system’s angle of momentem is lined up with the smaller, intersecting galaxy?

No. The Solar System is tilted at an angle to the plane of the Milky Way, but it does not align with the plane of the Sag Dwarf.

> Could/would a passing ‘rain’ of transient stars torque us about to line up with it, rather than our supposed parent, the milky way?

No. For stars to have had that kind of effect, to change the orientation of the Solar System, it would have dramatically affected the orbital paths. The Solar System would not be coplanar, but erratic.

Mike J, you seem to be overreaching. To say that he can understand how one might see the names in a political light is a far cry from stating that he intentionally suggested those names as a political statement, which was your original assertion. You have yet to provide evidence to that conjecture.

Regarding Phil’s comments on the origins of the Solar System, his original response was in relation to the proposal that the Solar System originated in the Sag Dwarf galaxy and was being captured by the Milky Way. His response in light of that proposal was to say it was not consistent with the evidence, and to point out how the proposal was erroneous. In the process of examining that claim, he did go on to state that the Solar System originated in the Milky Way, which in retrospect he clarified was a bit extreme given that the Milky Way has been absorbing smaller galaxies over time, and it is conceivable that it could have in the distant past absorbed a different galaxy that was the original source for the Solar System. However, the timescale for that was significantly far enough back that it wouldn’t mean a hill of beans to us. Also, there’s no evidence to support that notion, so it’s idle speculation with no means for verification one way or another. And most importantly, it does not negate his point that the Sag Dwarf origin proposal is still wrong.

In light of that, it does not appear that you have anything meaningful to contribute, and are just here to whine about your beef with Phil.

I’ll leave the political parts alone, but I have to point something out. In your last comment, you said:

Mike Brown comments on the “political” contraversy, and how the names “resonate” with current geo-political happenings.

Its also basically what Mike Brown said in YOUR OWN interview done w/ him months ago… where Mr. Brown said “he could understand” how [the names Eris and Dysnomia] could be seen in a political light. [emphasis mine]

By your own words, and Mike Browns’, it seems that what you are asserting doesn’t fly. As Phil pointed out in his first post, Mike Brown points to the astronomy community for the source of the names. Mike Brown saying it “resonates” with and you saying it “could” be political does not mean it is. It only says that you are looking for reasons to make it that way.

Is is true that our solar system is in the intersection between the milky way and Sag Dwarf?

Is it true that our solar system’s angle of momentem is lined up with the smaller, intersecting galaxy? Could/would a passing ‘rain’ of transient stars torque us about to line up with it, rather than our supposed parent, the milky way?

Thanks for your insight…

Help yourself. Everything I post here is for public consumption. Just remember it’s not peer reviewed
- Jack

PS - A credit would be nice when you post it somewhere…