It is my understanding from Classical Mechanics and Relativistic Mechanics that gravity wells or centres (like those created by the galactic core) create a very precisely aligned sheet of stars and solar systems that orbit in sync with the galactic plane.

Yes, the Earth has a 23 degree tilt and that has to be filtered out with respect to all observations (where galactic plane alignment is critical). Yes, orbital resonances with the solar system are an important part of all research into solar system origins. Yes, you need double precision maths to analyse all of this.

Yet, most astronomy (visible or radio) is in the Southern Hemisphere. This placement effect is the sticky point that must be explained somehow with some certainty.

However, proof of the solar system osselating up and down the galactic plane is not easy to obtain due to the very long timeframes involved -- even if statistical mechanics can show the ossalatory effect with great certainty.

One galaxy cannibalising another galaxy is a systemic process that is measured in Gegayears -- and the mechanics of such are still very new to scientific research. The cannibalization of the Solar System could have taken place as far back as 65 millions to 80 millions of years ago -- long enough to have substantial quenching of redshift and other orbital data. The Milky Way has a more powerful gravity centre, so it can quench better than dwarf galaxies.

The stellar "metals" composition argument that is to distinguish star populations from each other (as a way to prove or disprove external origins) is interesting but can't be totally conclusive. The metals composition argument is subject to bell curve star formation probability problems.

I would like to see a secondary or tertiary arguments using other physics to show more conclusively that the Sagittarius Solar System origin is bunk. If this origin idea can be disproven by 3 separate and different scientific methods that would be optimal.

My view is that a second argument might be found in the stability or instability of the Oort Cloud.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

Tertiary arguments are welcome...

Hi Travis and the rest of the guys.

How much of this is true about the Gallactic Alignment that ment to happen on 21st December 2012 and is it true about what could happen?

Also what do you guys know of Planet X thats ment to be around at the same time?

I only ask because of the information i found at this web site

Is it possible that the universe are collapsing at this very moment but wee are unable to se it?

If all the stars & galaxies emerged from an non rotating point in universe I expect that they would fly outwards but that the gravity will gradually slow
down the velocity of everything so they will eventually stop and than start to accelerate back to the origin of the staring point.

But what happens if the point rotating around 1, 2 or 3 axis?

Will the stars & galaxies in this case ever come to a complete stop in their path before the start to falling back to the point of origin?

Imagine that the galaxy that wee se traveling at the speed of light relative to us now traveling towards us then wee will only se the back light so to speak but the front light will wee not see until wee actually collide.

Or in other words wee will observe an expending universe right to the time when wee collide.

Hi all, this is my first post in the forums but l have been crunching for some time now.

Interesting scenario there simplex0 and nice reply by Joses. Indeed if galaxies were moving closer to us then they should appear brighter.

Correct me if l am wrong and this might sound stupid to most of you, but how do we know where the galaxies should be moving towards to if we don't know in which space the big bang occurred? And technically that would be hard to pinpoint since space as we know it is a product of the big bang as well(as far as l remember).

It is very puzzling that galaxies move away from us at ever increasing speeds.

Again sorry if my post is stupid.