Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: Home?

- Fri, 19 Oct 2018 18:25:45 EST 457vC2+I No.57470
File: 1539987945247.jpg -(20518B / 20.04KB, 485x313) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: Home?
>>original article

Quick rundown of the findings, which are earth-shattering if fully true, and still quite interesting if only partially true: our galaxy is orbited by a smaller spheroidal dwarf galaxy currently visible within the constellation Sagittarius. For hundreds of millions of years, it has been orbiting in a perpendicular orbit after having been pulled into the Milky Way's gravity, having stars pulled off of it each time it passes through the galactic disk, to the point now where it is very small, faint, and nearly at the point of losing gravitational cohesion. You can see a visualization of the stream of radiation left by the galaxy astronomers used to determine its path in the pic.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

It just so happens that Sol is directly within this stream of debris. For 99.9% of our orbit around the galaxy, we wouldn't be within that stream. Also, incidentally, we are at an angle to the plane of the galaxy, which was always thought a little bit odd, since most stars planetary orbital plane is parallel to the galactic plane since during accretion their accretion disks are subject to inertial forces from the star's orbit around the galaxy.

Given the extreme odds of us just happening to be within that stream, it would seem to suggest that Sol itself is native to the dwarf, having been pulled out on the dwarf's last passage through the galactic plane.

-The period of the dwarf's orbit is around 200 million years. It is roughly 25% of the way through its orbit counting from our position in the galactic plane, which means we would have been caught by the Milky Way about 50 million years ago. The last time we passed through the plane before that, presumably still gravitationally bound to the dwarf, would have been 150 million years ago.
-Incidentally, these numbers roughly coincide with major extinction events on earth, presumably because the gravitational disruption of passing through the galactic plane would disturb the Oort cloud and send high levels of asteroids into the inner system.
-If this is true, the Drake equation is completely bunk, since we have assumed that earth was native to the Milky Way in making our estimates about life.
-Radiation levels in the dwarf are much, much lower than in the Milky Way. If this true, that means life developed on our planet under a condition of much lower radiation than we are currently experiencing. I don't need to tell you life and radiation don't get along, so this is a startling finding about the long-term future of life on earth (and indeed in the galaxy at large) if true.
-Higher galactic radiation would increase mean solar radiation, increasing damage to DNA among other effects. This could explain the sudden rise of mammals, as their more robust homeostatic systems could perhaps better deal with the heat increase. This would also explain why all the planets in the solar system -- not just earth -- are experiencing climatic shifts in a hotter direction before you get your panties in a bunch, we're talking about a period of warming that has been going on for at least 50 million+ years. It can't be used to explain anthropogenic climate change, which is still real

-While I don't find the rebuttal wholly convincing (its argument about the plane of the solar system is misleading at best, as well as its argument about where we should find ourselves relative to the ring of debris -- at the very least, it's not the slam-dunk debunk the author tries to pretend it is) it does bring up the problem of the lower general metallicity of the dwarf galaxy's stars. However, we can't really estimate what the stellar population of the dwarf was when it first arrived, since so many stars have already been stripped off, so this doesn't tell us as much as you would think.

What are your thoughts /sagan/? Big if true, fascinating if false, or a bunch a bunk?
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 04:42:36 EST 4c9MLBxC No.57472 Reply
My educated opinion on this is; that it's interesting as fuck.
Seems to explain a lot of things
Made me wonder about how such cosmic events affect the life here on earth

Thanks for the thorough post.
Karl Jansky - Sat, 20 Oct 2018 19:32:48 EST unNII3om No.57474 Reply
1540078368798.jpg -(35739B / 34.90KB, 500x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yeah this is super interesting, thanks for posting.

Especially the possible implications of radiation on life. I guess we have to wait a few decades for science to find a consensus on this, but man if a galactic migration is the reason for why we even exist, that would be cool.
Karl von Weizsacker - Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:10:38 EST 457vC2+I No.57475 Reply
1540181438796.png -(29340B / 28.65KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Thanks guise. As cool as I find the general hypothesis, and also pleased with how satisfyingly it ties in and explains a bunch of errant facts that never had complete explanations of their own, the broad view if this is true is quite grim. We could be dealing with not just a planetary 'goldilocks zone' but a galactic one, which increases the likelihood of 'Rare Earth' solutions to the Fermi paradox tremendously. Beyond that, it could be the case that this galaxy is extremely hostile to life, or at least life not highly adapted to radiation. We may find it more barren than we imagined -- never mind thinking about how even earth-originating life could survive in it long term.

On the flip side, if it turns out smaller galaxies are necessary to have the mix of rapid star-formation and low radiation to allow life, there are a number of candidates near by (cosmically speaking), as the Milky Way has a phenomenal number of satellite galaxies (59!)
Heinrich Olbers - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:41:28 EST wbWl150I No.57476 Reply
incredible! This made my night.

I'm not sure how grim the implications are tbh. We're talking hundreds of billions of stars and planets in the Milky Way, who knows what kind of terrestrial conditions let alone what kinds of self replicating compounds are possible within that. Not saying you're wrong, just saying there's too much to speculate on to make a call, personally.
Gerard Kuiper - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:57:46 EST 457vC2+I No.57477 Reply
1540789066683.gif -(986171B / 963.06KB, 250x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Trust me, I'd like to be wrong on that point. The thing about it is, if the total galactic radiation output is so much higher, that will increase the mean radiation level for every star in the galaxy. You could have local effects that shield a particular system, but that's all very down to chance (it is worth noting that the galactic dust cloud in the direction of Orion significantly shields us from light, and perhaps radiation, from the core.)

Our best bet might be super-earths, which could have an even stronger magnetic field than ours to defend them against radiation. Also, water worlds, as water is a great radiation barrier. Realistically, however, it won't be a real problem, since we'll colonize the galaxy as machines. The main downside is the odds of discovering another planet with earth-like biology in the Milky Way would be much lower in this scenario.

Then again, on the flip-flip side, oxygen is also extremely hazardous to DNA and we found a way to mitigate that damage. Perhaps even with radiation life uh...finds a way.
Heinrich Olbers - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:19:24 EST wbWl150I No.57478 Reply
1540840764922.jpg -(22259B / 21.74KB, 480x303) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>life uh awhr eehhh ummm finds a way

That's pretty much the crux of it. Our ecosystems have evolved despite the damage from radiation and oxygen, shit we even require them. Maybe like you say, super earths and water worlds and perhaps icy worlds or places with vast cave systems would have a better chance of harboring earth-like life, but if life here has survived multiple extinction events then who knows really. And that's just accounting for earth-like life.
Clyde Tombaugh - Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:57:38 EST unNII3om No.57482 Reply

Extinction events has little to do with this. Whether a meteor or a super-volcano knocks the ecology and climate out of wack, this never has been a threat to life in general. Even super acid hot-springs are home to life, and we got plants surviving on Antarctica and animal generalists surviving in 'sterile' human-made environments. Oxygen itself became a threat merely because a certain green clade of life began photosynthesizing CO2 to into that shit. Before that oxygen was no threat at all.

Radiation though is another ball-game. When life started it was probably as a simple string of DNA-like molecular precursors, at least it ought to have been following the reductionary logic of evolution. If DNA ancestors are the source of life, then it follows that genetics came before repair systems of the cell. In a very radioactive environment these molecular precursors would presumably have issues generating new generations before radiation scrambled their own molecular make-up.
Riccardo Giacconi - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 20:29:35 EST 4CPlXyM6 No.57483 Reply
Apparently I'm not educated enough to discern which argument has more weight, but it lead me to an uncomfortable realization: the core. Unless this Saggitarius is abnormal, it should harbor a fairly massive black hole as its center of mass. So once MW's gravitational pull destabilizes S enough for it to more or less fall apart its core will have to go somewhere and guess what the nearest big thing is?
Johann Bode - Fri, 02 Nov 2018 17:47:22 EST 457vC2+I No.57488 Reply
Sagittarius spheroidal dwarf doesn't necessarily have a supermassive black hole. The jury is still out on whether they are requisite for galaxy formation. If it does, it is much smaller than Sagittarius A* (the name of our supermassive black hole, just so no one gets confused.) And if it did fall into it it wouldn't hurt anything much, Sag A* has probably already consumed dozens of smaller black holes in its lifetime.
Friedrich von Struve - Sat, 03 Nov 2018 21:00:31 EST XDou1vhj No.57489 Reply
Yeah, I know. Thing is, even if it's not supermassive it should be at least several thousand Sol masses. And yeah, our gravitational center doesn't care about it, but everything in the dwarf core's path as it floats towards our core is not going to enjoy the encounter. Even just being roughly along its trajectory can fuck up a star's orbit in a galaxy.
Sure, it won't matter to our generation and maybe even for the species as a whole as it will probably take millions of years for the dwarf galaxy to fall apart, but the concept itself is unsettling.
Henrietta Levitt - Sun, 04 Nov 2018 18:07:20 EST 457vC2+I No.57490 Reply
Well, luckily, the next time the dwarf would even come in contact with us would be on its next pass through the galaxy, which won't be for 150 million years. If we're still around, we will probably have left Sol far behind.
Daniel Kirkwood - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:36:13 EST 457vC2+I No.57492 Reply
1542328573145.jpg -(357267B / 348.89KB, 2800x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Here's an interesting additional tidbit everyone:
>>Scientists think there's a "dark matter hurricane" heading toward Earth. In fact, it might even be blowing through us already.
>> stars passing through our solar system's general region... scientists named this group the "S1 stream,"
>>Parades of stars like these form when the Milky Way gobbles up a dwarf galaxy... researchers argued that S1 might be carrying with it a hefty load of dark matter from the original dwarf galaxy.
>>And they gave that baggage the snazzy name "dark matter hurricane."

I can't tell from this article if the two streams are the same or separate, but hey, it looks like more evidence in the OP article's direction either way.
Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:57:52 EST rNBxnMOH No.57493 Reply
1542329872842.jpg -(64858B / 63.34KB, 700x788) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>pleased with how satisfyingly it ties in and explains a bunch of errant facts that never had complete explanations of their own,
Bernhard Schmidt - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 12:26:36 EST rNBxnMOH No.57498 Reply
I just realized this whole thing is probably bunk. I really need to thoroughly check sources before responding.
This whole source is completely fucking worthless dude
Caroline Herschel - Sun, 18 Nov 2018 17:04:09 EST 457vC2+I No.57499 Reply
Not much I can say to you to respond to the points you bring up, since your argument amounts to 'I don't agree with you because of who you are.'
Christiaan Huygens - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:30:59 EST rNBxnMOH No.57500 Reply
Why should I entertain fools? Yes, if the source you used also includes such gems as
It's a clickbait site. I don't know where the fuck people keep getting the idea that "my opinion is equally as valid as yours." No it isn't. Some opinions are factually incorrect. A shoddy source with no scientific background and National Enquirer tier headlines is nowhere near the same ballpark as the opinion of astronomers, it isn't even the same f'ing game.

It's a neat idea, but Jesus Christ I'd have respected godlikeproductions more than that.
Friedrich Bessel - Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:51:58 EST unNII3om No.57501 Reply

Sorry, you can't really act like that in this case because the source is indeed shite.

After searching for published articles on this myself I could not find any proper scientific source beyond viewzone. Until we get a real peer-reviewed article on the table this should be seen as pseudoscience.

It's a pitty because it sounds like a good idea. Evidently too good to be true.
Irwin Shapiro - Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:24:36 EST 457vC2+I No.57502 Reply
Very disappointing that you guys are basically resorting to the same tactics the author in the OP linked rebuttal used. Yes, the original site is highly suspect, but it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a claim merely because of who makes it. You should be able to dismiss it on your own without reference to who is making the claim if it is really worthy of dismissal. Otherwise, you look like dogmatists.

As the rebuttal illustrates, ignoring the Mayan calender and pole shift stuff, the key facts in the article are not in question;
1.) The Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is real.
2.) It really is on an orbital path through our galaxy that constantly disrupts it. In fact the Milky Way may owe its spiral shape to it: https://www.space.com/12952-milkyway-galaxy-shape-galactic-crash.html
3.) It really is the case that Sol is very near to the stream of infrared radiation and dark matter left by the dwarf's passage through the galaxy. And, it's not like there are dozens of such streams and we happen to be near one; no other satellite galaxy has had as strong an effect on the shape of the Milky Way.

These facts require some natural explanation. I'm asking for a natural explanation. If we just dismiss things because of who says them without evaluating their truth value first, we are no better than bible-thumpers.
Gerard Kuiper - Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:57:37 EST unNII3om No.57503 Reply

Point is that most of us are not real astronomers with decades in the field, we're not really qualified to make judgement on whether these arguments are sound or not. Without someone of authority in the field backing the claim up, it's better to view it with suspicion. There's enough myths out there masquerading as science.

I'm not rejecting the idea, as I've said above and earlier in this thread I like it. However this isn't science and should be treated as such, until we hear more about this from the scientific community.
Vesto Slipher - Wed, 28 Nov 2018 23:46:17 EST Z2zWh4PB No.57509 Reply
My sign is sagittarius. Isthisrealife?
Hannes Alven - Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:30:43 EST rNBxnMOH No.57510 Reply
> but it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a claim merely because of who makes it.
No, it is intellectually dishonest to entertain an idea regardless of where it came from or who said it out of a misguided sense of "everyone is entitled to their own opinion=all opinions are equal". The fact that this is the only place I could find entertaining the idea means I'm wasting my time.

Suppose I were to tell you my theory on bigfoot being in fact an Indo-Aryan ancestor for all humans that crossed the land bridge into Nebraska. I can then assert said big foot has ancient magics and can trick people into thinking he is the mothman, and that his people built Atlantis but were hunted to near extinction. Why the fuck should my opinion blathered on an anonymous imageboard be taken with the same credulity as an anthropologist?

>Otherwise, you look like dogmatists.
Your intellect is way weaker than you think, if you cannot discern between this and "dogmatism". Like I said I could not find one source for the idea outside of a shitty clickbait site that sincerely talks about Mothman and Bigfoot.

>These facts require some natural explanation.
My field is more about knowing how to string together facts and implausibilities to make them sound factual--in other words how to be a propagandist or fiction writer. Any disparate collection of facts does not back up the premise the way you seem to think it does. From just what I read here it sounds as though a great many of the "facts" brought up in the viewzone blogpost are in fact disputed and not factual.

>1.) The Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy is real.
And? The Andromeda galaxy is also on a collision course with us. These facts do not prove the premise. Look it's a neat idea but I honestly think this plays more to peoples emotions of "gee aren't we special" and general anthropocentrism. It would be a pretty funny way to explain the mass extinction patterns, if the (somewhat debunked?) trend of 25-27 million years actually fit into this time frame of his, which it doesn't. If you look at how he's trying to match it up with the evolution of life on earth you'll notice the time frame doesn't fit.
Charles Bolton - Thu, 29 Nov 2018 22:04:36 EST 457vC2+I No.57513 Reply
Ad hominem and relativistic realism may both be fallacies to you, but that doesn't make them logically equivalent. When you are claiming one thing is something else it obviously is not, it makes me suspicious, when I assume if you can tell this is bunk you should have very well developed internal ideas on why. Why not reference them instead?

I don't really have a problem with you rejecting this idea, but with arriving at what may be a sound conclusion by erroneous means, and then insisting that these are the *primary* reasons to reject the idea. The next time it might not be so cut and dry and such sloppiness might get you into a lot of trouble, and if you teach people that is the appropriate way to react, then the error gradually becomes permanent.
Grote Reuber - Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:24:33 EST D7Nw/FlX No.57533 Reply
Personally, I'm more worried about Yellowstone.
Edwin Hubble - Sun, 24 Feb 2019 05:52:39 EST U4u72hWB No.57541 Reply
1551005559017.jpg -(562908B / 549.71KB, 1593x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
uneducated pleb here. would it be a good idea to strive for escaping back to the drawf galaxy assuming out system came from there? If this galaxy has higher radiation than that dwarf galaxy which supposedly we evolved from. 150 million years or so i the estimate for the transit that's with in our line of evolution isn't it? Then should we worry about an inevitable dead end in ou evolution or would we acclimate? Maybe escaping this galaxy would be a good idea esp if the fermi paradox is thrown right out the window giving the conditions here, who knows what the fuck lives here. But I'm more interested in our basic survival odds, not counting for the clockwork mass destruction events.

This some sci fi shit my dudes.
Bernard Burke - Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:19:08 EST 457vC2+I No.57542 Reply
These are all unknowns, however the suggestion I made in OP was that mammals kind of are life's 'adaptation' to the current environment. But I mean, if we're going to survive in the galaxy long term, being biological organisms prone to radiation makes us vulnerable in lots of other ways too. So it's best just to fix that.
Besides, the level of tech we would need to migrate to the dwarf is way higher than the level of tech we (or any other aliens) would need to become machines, so if this galaxy is indeed fatal to organic life, most civilizations would converge on that as the optimal solution I think.
Johann Bode - Sat, 16 Mar 2019 20:38:40 EST rNBxnMOH No.57573 Reply
OP's post sounds like a bunch of absolute hogwash and I cannot find any other sources for it than his own link which literally discusses things like bigfoot alongside this.
>Then should we worry about an inevitable dead end in ou evolution or would we acclimate?
No because we are currently living in a man made mass extinction event already caused in part but not entirely by climate change (the rest of the mass extinction is due to numerous other factors of human activity like 7 billion hungry mouths stripping the ocean of all sea life, completely eradicating entire species by hunting them to extinction like the Wooly Mammoth, and numerous factors from our reckless massively polluting and sharply expanding urban civilization). The amount of destruction on a global scale reminds me of a bacterial sheet. The human organism became out of whack and overcolonized its own petri dish. I think the current stage in humanity is ample evidence that intelligent technological civilizations are unlikely to ever be found because in the few instances where it happened it likely destroyed itself either wiping out the civilization or outright sterilizing much of the planet, and that is assuming these societies didn't do something really stupid like knock themselves out of orbit careening into the sun, creating a massive enough singularity to swallow their planet whole before evaporating, or any number of other scenarios in which case the actual planet itself no longer exists.

But as for now, what happens in millions of years is pretty fucking irrelevant to us when we're talking about things like climate change moving us towards ecological and societal collapse within the next hundred or two hundred years.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.