Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Milky Way - Welcome to your New Home Galaxy!

page: 14
387
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


You're correct that it's bunk, but it's not even, by definition, a theory.

The referenced author of the original study has disclaimed exactly what this thread claims is true:
Link1
And
Link 2

Harte




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
More evidence giving this concept some credibility.

www.theregister.co.uk...


NASA: Solar system may have alien origin

The latest data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) probe has found a curious disparity in the distribution of some of the key elements of our solar system, notably why there is so much oxygen in it.


To me, this also demonstrate how little we know about the universe.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Oxygen by weight is the third most abundant element in the Universe, atomic weight 8, Hydrogen and Helium are one and two corresponding to their atomic weight. Neon is 4th, (10) Nitrogen is fifth (7), and Carbon is sixth, (6).

The average age of the stars in the Milky Way and the dwarf Sagittarius galaxies are markably different, and our sun is most like the Milky Way stars.

"The Register' is far from credible, though they also just described our galaxy and solar system's oxygen level.

There is no reason why a solar system ecliptic should align with its parent galactic plane whatsoever.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I'll take NASA's word on the subject over yours.

We know very little about the Sagittarius Galaxy, and I have yet to read any evidence that our solar system could not have originated in the Sagittarius Galaxy.

When you dig into what we believe about the world outside of our little sphere, most of it based on weak evidence, and lots of unproven theories, and theories based on theories.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I'll take NASA's word on the subject over yours.


NASA made no 'word' on the subject. Indeed we can measure star makeup and relative age. Please do site NASA's word for us.

Oh, I now see what you misunderstand.


Originally posted by poet1b

More evidence giving this concept some credibility.

www.theregister.co.uk...


NASA: Solar system may have alien origin

The latest data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) probe has found a curious disparity in the distribution of some of the key elements of our solar system, notably why there is so much oxygen in it.


To me, this also demonstrate how little we know about the universe.


I've already commented to the article 'the register' references.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Feel free to add to that thread, it has nothing to do with this Sagitarius idea. That's one place where your confusion originates.

Basically all that article says is we rotate around the Milky Way, and we are not presently where we originated, meaning around the Galaxy, things change. You are misrepresenting their discovery as confusion, it only is saying where we are in the Galaxy now is different than the conditions inside our solar system, specifically the ration of oxygen to neon, and very little else.

How you take the leap to conclude that means the Solar System is from another galaxy I don't know, but it is baseless.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You are the one confused. I make no conclusions, only identify additional information that supports the op of the thread.

I didn't write the headline.

"We are not presently where we originated", because maybe our solar system didn't originate in the Milky Way, but in Sagittarius.

Your false assumption is that our current theories about our galaxy and deep space are developed with solid information, and it is not.

And, the whole thread is written with a tongue in cheek sense of humor. Don't get too serious on us.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I get serious when confused people say I'm confused about a given topic I'm replying to. Its said we don't know what gravity is, but we can measure it, its effects, and use it in orbital dynamics so what difference does it make we don't assign an origin for it? Exaggeration of the fact not all answers are know doesn't invalidate the data that we do know, and use, to make computers, nuclear weapons, and beer with.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Well, you were definitely confused about what I was saying.

It is as important to recognize what we do not know, as it is to recognize what we do know.

Our understanding of gravity in calculating orbital dynamics wasn't all that accurate, until we got some experience under our belts, so our ability to predict isn't as great as mainstream science wants to claim.

Luckily, we have a great deal more experience in making beer.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Saw the comments wondering why the US Navy would be taking pictures of the sky.

The United States Naval Observatory has been around since 1830. Some people might wonder why the Navy would have an observatory for the study of the stars, but the answer is quite simple: Navigation.
Having accurate star charts, along with an accurate time piece (clock), and a well made sextant was vital when navigating the large oceans of our planet. (of course now a days, GPS comes in quite handy, but the US Navy still teaches and uses star navigation. Simply put: if all your electronics were to fail, you'd still have a reliable way to find your way home!
).

Here's a link to their site if anyone is interested:

www.usno.navy.mil...

S&F to the OP for an interesting read, and interesting theory, and for the time spent on putting it together.

I'm afraid I don't buy it though. Heh.

As has been pointed out, our star, Sol, matches more closely to the stars make up in the Milkyway as opposed to Sag.
The orbital velocity of our sun around the Milkyway's core far exceeds the relative velocity crossing the plane.
The solar plane that most of our system objects (planets, astroids, etc) might be at a 90 deg angle when compared to the galactic plane, but this doesn't really prove anything. Here's why:

Star Formation: When planets form around a star, they do so out of the accretion disk that surrounds that star, which follows the star's spin. A star's spin is completely random due to the fact that it is based upon the eddies and currents that form from the first clumping of interstellar mater that begins to clump together to form the star.
There for it is completely possible for stars in the Milkyway to have planets that are 90 deg from the galactic plane. If you thought that all stars in the Milkway are suppose to have their planets lined up with the galactic plane, I'm afraid you're mistaken, and should not be used as evidence that our solar system originated outside the Milkyway.

As for some of our planets being out of alignment (read that as Uranus), it's pretty much accepted that Uranus got knocked over on it's side by a early impact, and the same goes for Venus, so much so that it literally flipped the planet over, and is why it rotates opposite compared to all the other planets in the system (sun rises in the west there). Given the rather violent nature of planet forming during the beginning of a solar systems this isn't too hard to believe.

Still an interesting OP and well presented (unlike some OP's that I've seen on here that post an outlandish idea in a single sentence, then point to a paragraph of external text as their only piece of evidence....those posts drive me up the wall), so I give you a thumbs up on how you presented your material. Keep posting!
edit on 2-2-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
This actually reminds me a lot about a post I read not long ago, scientists told of two gamma ray bubbles spanning 50 million light years across on both sides of the milkyway, let me find it quick and I'll post the link and a photo


Link:NASA's Fermi Telescope Finds Giant Structure in our Galaxy

Photo:


Using data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, scientists have recently discovered a gigantic, mysterious structure in our galaxy. This feature looks like a pair of bubbles extending above and below our galaxy's center. Each lobe is 25,000 light-years tall and the whole structure may be only a few million years old. (Video credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)

Youtube Video:





new topics

top topics



 
387
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join