because of very strong but distant gravitational force yes it would effect the orbits of our planets and as such they not perfect circles now the effect is because the planets will not all be effected exactly by the same amount as some are father away than others and some are larger than others and lets not forget about small amount of distance the travel as they orbit as we get closer to the source the difference in gravitational pull from one side of the sun and the other side will increases as we get closer to this source the source i would assume is the black hole in the center of the milky way

we use earth’s magnetic field to move our satellites orientation this effect is not strong enough to pull a satellite down or slow it down by any detectable amount earth’s magnetic field does prudence eddy currents and that does slow satellites down a bit not much though and that has nothing to do with gravity but lets remember that as the planets orbit our sun they get pulled away from our sun a bit and closer depending on the position of the sun in respect to the milky way black hole and that our past position may have lined up with the ecliptic of the milky

and their could be a line comic line in the sand where energy levels raise and we could be crossing it this line would be hard to see it would be like trying to spot a laser with out seeing it hit something nor seeing its source as this is filed of energy not a concentrated source it could also be compared trying to see the static field on your screen if you touch it you can feel it as it has a direct effect on you how do you measures it with out touching it with an instrument or watching the dust collect on the surface yet where is the surface of a Galaxy not to mention how long it takes for dust to collect on this scale

look at we know and what we can detect not saying i have an opinion one way or the other here but before we call something fact lets ask what we no to prove that fact if you can not prove the that a contradictory statement is false in comparison to current belief then current belief is not fact it is theory just like the contradictory statement made about the segway galaxy being our home before either one of these beliefs could become fact one of them must be disproven so lets disprove on of them but when you find allot of evidence to support the opposite of your beliefs it maybe time to change your beliefs not to dismiss it and forget it and a good scientist will look for evidence to prove him wrong and with the lack of such creditable evidence and creditable evidence that proves him right he will then try to declare a fact

lets not forget what one super nova can do if it were inside our galaxy and what would be the effect of 2 stars colliding probably not to bad but the increased gravity and disturbed orbits make a chain reaction we could get an orbiting black hole that swallows everything in its path that would be bad

1 billion stars the suns gravity extends 2 LIGHT YEARS

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=129503

Sso what are the odds if the when the adramda galaxy collides

no for a dwarf galaxy well do we know our own place with enough precision to know that is what galley we really from to answer that what center are rotating around and can we be sure that has not changed in the recent time that is the question now the movement si very slow so how long have we been observing this and how far have we traveled can we see what our wobble is do we know if our orbit is at all perturbed i do not think we have been watching long enough and may also lack the right equipment to detect that bad astronomy at its finest here try to discredit somebody using proof you know you do not have

wait a minute that is bad science not just bad astronomy

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…

June 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Oh, I forgot to add– do you have citations for the interviews with Mike Brown which confirmed what you wrote?
—————————

Better than an article, it was on VIDEO!

You can catch a re-airing of the show on the “science” channel. The show was “voyage to the planets: Pluto and beyond”. Just on last week again.

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.

But you had already smeared me with the broad brush of “right winger” .. even thought I’m a registered independent who voted for Harry Brown in 2000, and Kerry in 2004…

All for what?! Because I said the naming of Eris and Dysnomia (on 9/11 no less) was a double-speak naming event aimed also at current world events.. and to think I was right and you never retracted.

So please forgive me for jumping on you when you issue a “correction” when making one of your famous “false assumptions” … that I might add are NOT based upon science.

Science is the study of observable phenomenon.

Guesstimations using parralax geometry and making the bold claim that YOU (phil the BA) know for certain where our sun comes from (or certain where it did NOT come from) fits perfectly in line with your other vapid “scientific” observations.

Finally, if you really believe that Huffington Post represents 70% of the population of the USA, either you don’t get out much, or your statistics are just as bad as your “assumptions”.

I don’t think Mike will take the hint, but I do agree whole-heartedly.
-Paul

(The website is down at the moment, so I’ll try to link later.)

However, you neglected to mention that snigloop upjuk incombobulis lololactasee.

Furthermore, new did eht enasni nrel ot esu sretupmoc.

Mike J, you’re quite ungrateful. When are you going to thank Dr Plait for upping your hitcount well into the double figures?

Jerfaloo snub carbo. Chicky-poo flipp flipp calamaloo. Ig-jiggy freedo, ap dolisty comobooboohead.

Also: sneeceejee.

And that’s all I have to say about that!

Hmm, why don’t we figure it with relative center-to-center distances relative to the size of the objects. That’s a little cleaner than trying to imagine the galaxy crammed into a standard room.

First, I didn’t say which molecule because there’s lots of different gasses you could be pumping, but let’s use air, which is mostly nitrogen. A nitrogen molecule is roughly 200 picometers in diameter (it’s actually ovoid with a long axis of about 250 pm) or 2×10^-10 meters.

There are one million cubic centimeters in a 1 meter chamber, so with 100 million molecules/cc, that’s 10^14 molecules/cubic meter. Inverting that means each molecule takes up 10^-14 cubic meters. The center-to-center distance would be the cube root of that, or 2.2×10^-5 meters. As a ratio to the nitrogen molecules diameter, that’s 1.1×10^5 diameters apart.

Doing the same thing for Stark’s estimate of the galaxy, he says there is an average of one star for every 310 cubic LY, meaning a center-to-center distance of 6.8 LY. This is 2.1×10^8 Light-seconds. With the average star 4.7 L-sec across in his example, that means the average spacing is 4.6×10^7 stellar diameters.

It’s crude, but that shows that the average spacing of stars in the galaxy is more than two orders of magnitude further apart than molecules in a high vac chamber. Space, therefore, is some 425 times more “empty” than the best industrial vacuum commonly used.

- Jack

Oh, well. Interesting galaxy stuff so far. The Sag D debunking was thought provoking, but so have most of the responses and corrections. Looking forward to reading more.

“It would appear the BA finds himself correcting himself an awful lot.”

Well, it depends on what you mean by “an awful lot”. When I make a mistake, I do admit it, and try to correct it. That’s how you know for a fact I’m not a right-wing ideologue. But I take exception that I need to do it a lot.

And you might want to look at the polls, since most of the people at HuffPo represent 60-70% of mainstream America on most of the big issues these days. Of course, Deepak Chopra and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. post there too, and their words could be used as fertilizer. But they’re the exception.

But if the best you can do is tell me that I have to make the occasional correction, then you maybe don’t understand how science works.

Also, didn’t the space shuttle run some experiments where they dragged a shield behind the orbiter, and measured a vacuum of like 10^-13 Torr or something? I need to look that up…

Seems the odds of us hitting or being hit by another star moving thru our section of the milky way would be on the order of millions to one… but I’m not a statistician.

B-)