Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Lung]

Dear, oh dear. The more i look the worse it gets. The whole point of my jumping to conclusions and assuming it to be pseudoscientific quackery is that it stands out like a pimple on a nose.

As i said before, i didn't even bother reading the post, i just went straight to google as i knew i could easily find evidence to the contrary. I should of course debunk it scientifically, but when the debunking is aimed at someone who shows contempt at the scientific process i hardly see the need.

Anyway, i did so without even bothering to find out who the hell Sitchin is. Well, in about 20 seconds i found out that Sitchin was the dude behind the face on Mars. I then verified it by going directly to his site.

NASA had to be pestered into taking another photo of the face even though they knew it was pure coincidence. History shows that the face has indeed been debunked by nothing more than a higher resolution photo. Unsurprisingly, Sitchin still pathetically holds onto his assertion that it was carved into a face, albeit a very bad one

He is also the dude behind heaps of other stupid ideas such as planet X and so on. I dunno which is worse; Sitchin telling lies or Sitchin actually believing it!

And Beserker wonders why i call him stupid

[Winston]

I have no personal stock in this debate, but I think it'd be a good idea for you to cut down on the personal insults. Especially since nobody is even contradicting you inbetween each new personal stab you take.

[Lung]

Okay, i'll try and be nice.

Sorry Beserker, my insults are really aimed at the authors of pseudoscience, not the dupees.

[Berzerker]

Winston -

It should be noted however that the combined mass of asteroids are only about .2% the mass of the Earth, but some believe that an attempt to form a planet in this location may have been prevented by the relatively closeby planet of Jupiter, which may once have been an immensely massive proto-planet.

Yes, but what this ignores is that the asteroid belt may be the remnants of a collision between large objects, at least one of - Earth - having survived the collision. Then you'd have to add up all the debris or asteroids that have long since been ejected from the inner solar system or become part of other planets. The theory of the asteroid belt is based on this lack of mass without addressing the obvious - if a planet at the asteroid belt collided with another, could one or both survive the collision only to appear in a new orbit(s)?

Btw, some of the asteroids show evidence of "differentiation", a process of layering that occurs in planets. That suggests some were part of a planet at one point. And the explanation that Jupiter's gravity prevented a planet from forming ignores at least 2 problems - planets tend to form closer to the sun before outer planets because of nebular density which suggests a planet at the asteroid belt formed before Jupiter attained it's large size. Second, the asteroid belt is the logical place in the solar system for a large planet with plenty of H20 to form very early on. The asteroid belt is the ~location where comets begin producing a tail as they approach the sun, i.e., where ice begins to vaporise. When the sun ignited, the solar wind began pushing gas outward, the asteroid belt is where that gas (H20 anyway) solidifies. This is why the outer planets are gas giants, they gathered up the gases ejected from the inner solar system. So a larger planet than earth covered with water forming at the asteroid belt is not a leap.

John -

But... the Earth isn't in the asteroid belt. The asteroids are.

What are the asteroids and why did Earth stay in the same orbit after being struck by a Mars sized object? We're discussing a theory about how Earth got here given the evidence it didn't form here.

Ramo -

I never asserted that. I'm fairly certain that there's no abnormally strong connection between Saturn and Pluto, but I never stated that since I don't have the time to demonstrate that. I'm simply saying that, as far as I can see, your "connections" in no way imply that Pluto was a moon of Saturn.

I thought you suggested we would find such connections between other pairs of planets.

I agree with him, I don't see any special relevance to that pattern.

2:1 is a pattern, true? Isn't that relevant by itself? And if this pattern suggests a planet should be at the asteroid belt instead of where earth is, and earth shows evidence of being hit by a large object sometime before 4 billion years ago, don't y'all start wondering what happened? Or do you still see nothing special or relevant?

Winston's numbers are somewhat accurate, he's stating a completely different pattern than you are.

Yes, he's using Titus-Bode, the law that led to the discovery of the asteroid belt as astronomers believed a planet should be found there. But Titus was based on knowing the current configuration of planets out to Uranus(?). This includes and must account for an Earth in this orbit, and Titus still predicts a planet at the asteroid belt.

It's not the the difference between the furthest distance from the sun of the further planet from the mean difference of the nearest planet divided by the difference between nearest distance of the further planet and the mean difference from the nearest planet. That's just painfully awkward numerology.

Sorry, but It was painful reading that.

You call my observation that subtracting Saturn's distance to the sun from Pluto's distances at perihelion and aphelion to the sun resulting in a 2:1 ratio is awkward numerology". Fine, but you also see no relevance in the planets lining up in a 2:1 ratio.

The problem, Berzerker, is that there are well-established physical principles that govern celestial mechanics, not random numerical cooincidences.

Which one of these physical principles says Pluto was not ejected from the Saturnian system?

Lung

Actually, I did

That's scary The assertion that Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion can be verified using simple trigonemetry but you thought I said Saturn's tilt = Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic (and used your confusion to insult me).

Right and wrong. In hindsight i was of course comparing apples and oranges. However, the pointing is a minor coincidence and cannot show cause in that pluto is orbiting the sun and not Saturn. Of course, the Sun would have interfered with that orbit, but that would have corrupted the result. There is no physical reason why it would retain its perihelion with Saturn but lose the rest of the orbit.

Of course Pluto orbits the sun, that doesn't mean it wasn't ejected from orbit around another planet. That last sentence makes no sense, but if Pluto orbited Saturn and was ejected, in all likelyhood Pluto was in an equatorial orbit of Saturn. That's why it's relevant that Saturn's equator points to Pluto.

I thought you insulted all of us first with your quack theory, even though that could reasonably be put down to delusion rather than malevolence.

If it's a quack theory, how would you know? You haven't exactly said anything to refute me or the evidence. Your contribution to this thread has been to offer up apples and oranges for us to correct and insults.

My whole objection to this is that people like Sitchin make up this garbage for whatever agenda they seek to achieve, probably to make great wads of cash at the expense of gullible fools like Beserker.

The reason i didn't resort to scientifically debunking this crap is that some people are so deluded that no amount of proof to the contrary can convince them that say, a random stone is an ancient pre-earth artifact being the key to the 11th dimension or any other stupid theory.

Hmm...but you think calling people names and then blame them for "deserving" the insults will convince them you're right and I'm wrong? I don't think you can refute this with science, show the other people here you can since I'm deluded. I didn't believe Sitchin because I'm gullible, but because I was intrigued enough by his theories to research his claims using mythology and science. In the 18 years since, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of Sitchin's main thesis and all I've seen is further corroboration.

[Winston]

But the Titius-Bode's Law accounts perfectly for the Earth's present location, contrary to your 2:1 theory which just suggests that it "should have been" in the Asteroid Belt.

Also, can we agree that the deviations from the "pattern" are far, far smaller with Titius-Bode?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax
I don't understand why you're on this thread. Are you trying to protect us all from this "psuedoscience crap". Do us all a favor and don't read and respond to "crap" that you have no interest in. This whole thread, people have made "friendly" jokes about Berzerkers ideas and he has responded with intelligence and tact. Even if you disagree with his, Sitchin or the Sumerian ideas, you have to respect that.
Also, how many people who are slamming Berzerker believe in the bible? Chistianity? Islam? Judaism?
The concept of a person turning water into wine passes through educated circles without question. That seems to be more laughable than the information Berzerker presented.
Also, why not consider that these religous and astronomical texts/ideas could be related and have varying degrees of truth in them.

Uh, Pax, why are you complaining about other people complaining about the idiocy in the world?

[Ramo]

I thought you suggested we would find such connections between other pairs of planets.

No, I didn't.

2:1 is a pattern, true?

A pattern of what? There's no physical reason why that particular formula should have a 2:1 ratio for consecutive satellites. As I said, there are physical principles underlying celestial mechanics, not numerology.

And if this pattern suggests a planet should be at the asteroid belt instead of where earth is, and earth shows evidence of being hit by a large object sometime before 4 billion years ago, don't y'all start wondering what happened? Or do you still see nothing special or relevant?

Just wondering, what does this have to do with Pluto being a moon of Saturn?

Sorry, but It was painful reading that.

You call my observation that subtracting Saturn's distance to the sun from Pluto's distances at perihelion and aphelion to the sun resulting in a 2:1 ratio is awkward numerology".

Yes it is. Can you demonstrate why this has any relevance?

Sorry, but It was painful reading that.

As I said, I'm not an astronomer, screw their terminology. They use cgs units for chrissakes.

Fine, but you also see no relevance in the planets lining up in a 2:1 ratio.

But they don't (Winston's formula is certainly not a 2:1 ratio). There simply is no physical reason to think that the planets should line up in a 2:1 ratio in particular.

Which one of these physical principles says Pluto was not ejected from the Saturnian system?

I never stated that. It's entirely in the realm of possibility that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn. There's just no physical reason to think that in particular, any more than Pluto was a satellite of Earth. Numerology don't cut it.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Winston -

Yes, but what this ignores is that the asteroid belt may be the remnants of a collision between large objects, at least one of - Earth - having survived the collision. Then you'd have to add up all the debris or asteroids that have long since been ejected from the inner solar system or become part of other planets. The theory of the asteroid belt is based on this lack of mass without addressing the obvious - if a planet at the asteroid belt collided with another, could one or both survive the collision only to appear in a new orbit(s)?

You are extrapolating plausibility all the way to being undeniable fact. Anything is possible, but not everything is fact.

Btw, some of the asteroids show evidence of "differentiation", a process of layering that occurs in planets. That suggests some were part of a planet at one point. And the explanation that Jupiter's gravity prevented a planet from forming ignores at least 2 problems - planets tend to form closer to the sun before outer planets because of nebular density which suggests a planet at the asteroid belt formed before Jupiter attained it's large size. Second, the asteroid belt is the logical place in the solar system for a large planet with plenty of H20 to form very early on. The asteroid belt is the ~location where comets begin producing a tail as they approach the sun, i.e., where ice begins to vaporise. When the sun ignited, the solar wind began pushing gas outward, the asteroid belt is where that gas (H20 anyway) solidifies. This is why the outer planets are gas giants, they gathered up the gases ejected from the inner solar system. So a larger planet than earth covered with water forming at the asteroid belt is not a leap.

It's one of lots of possibilities. Plausibility does not equal undeniable fact. De ja vu?

John -

What are the asteroids and why did Earth stay in the same orbit after being struck by a Mars sized object? We're discussing a theory about how Earth got here given the evidence it didn't form here.

It's no more than a hypothesis if it doesn't have strong, verifiable evidence. Remember, pseudoscience is the non-scientific dressed up as science.

Ramo -

2:1 is a pattern, true? Isn't that relevant by itself? And if this pattern suggests a planet should be at the asteroid belt instead of where earth is, and earth shows evidence of being hit by a large object sometime before 4 billion years ago, don't y'all start wondering what happened? Or do you still see nothing special or relevant?

To quote Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Does it make me wonder? It doesn't matter unless you have extraordinary proof, or at the very least extraordinary evidence to back up such a wild assertion.

Sorry, but It was painful reading that.

You call my observation that subtracting Saturn's distance to the sun from Pluto's distances at perihelion and aphelion to the sun resulting in a 2:1 ratio is awkward numerology". Fine, but you also see no relevance in the planets lining up in a 2:1 ratio.

It should be painful. It was your logic It's only relevant if it actually has any profound meaning, which you have failed to back up with anything meaningful.

Which one of these physical principles says Pluto was not ejected from the Saturnian system?

You're the one making grand assertions. Insisting on others to provide proof of impossibility does not make your extraordinary claim beyond question. It's your bald assertion, YOU back it up!

Lung

That's scary The assertion that Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion can be verified using simple trigonemetry but you thought I said Saturn's tilt = Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic (and used your confusion to insult me).

That just shows how little attention i paid to your ramblings. Nothing i've seen since shows that i should have done otherwise.

Of course Pluto orbits the sun, that doesn't mean it wasn't ejected from orbit around another planet. That last sentence makes no sense, but if Pluto orbited Saturn and was ejected, in all likelyhood Pluto was in an equatorial orbit of Saturn. That's why it's relevant that Saturn's equator points to Pluto.

The last sentence means that once the orbit was changed from Saturn to the Sun, there is no link to where it used to be. Once you change an orbit on that scale it has no reason to keep the same perihelion or any other part of the orbit for that matter. In other words, you can't use the pointing-to-Pluto's-perihelion argument to show anything.

The 'pointing' just shows that two planets' planes extended to infinity cross paths at some point. Being the perihelion can just as likely mean that the only just cross paths at all. It still doesn't show any causation, only an effect that is one of an almost infinite number.

If it's a quack theory, how would you know? You haven't exactly said anything to refute me or the evidence. Your contribution to this thread has been to offer up apples and oranges for us to correct and insults.

Yes, i admit it. It was easier to look up the author and find an already refuted claim and the corresponding dismissal of said refutation to show appropriate discrimination. If Sitchin had any respect for anyone else's considered, verifiable knowledge he would follow scientific protocol and either admit error or provide new evidence. I have every right to dismiss his opinions when his track record is as bad as his is.

Hmm...but you think calling people names and then blame them for "deserving" the insults will convince them you're right and I'm wrong? I don't think you can refute this with science, show the other people here you can since I'm deluded. I didn't believe Sitchin because I'm gullible, but because I was intrigued enough by his theories to research his claims using mythology and science. In the 18 years since, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of Sitchin's main thesis and all I've seen is further corroboration.

The problem with science is that it is often so mundane. Why believe something mundane with proof when you can believe something intriguing without it? Because it IS. Believing something because it is intriguing is the same emotive reasoning that makes religion, ghosts, UFOs, fairies, elves and dragons so popular, despite not one iota of evidence between the lot of them.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Lung

It's no more than a hypothesis if it doesn't have strong, verifiable evidence. Remember, pseudoscience is the non-scientific dressed up as science.

Actually, it's not even that. It's little more than speculation, and wild speculation at that.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Ramo

2:1 is a pattern, true?

A pattern of what? There's no physical reason why that particular formula should have a 2:1 ratio for consecutive satellites. As I said, there are physical principles underlying celestial mechanics, not numerology.

It does have a nice ring to it, i must admit. It could suggest that matter thinned out from the Sun at a given rate, but the large mass differences of the planets blow that 'theory' straight out of the water. Mere speculation.

Damn, now you've got me doing it!

[Lung]

Hehe, gotta love the quotes while waiting for posts to appear. My last post brought up a quote along the lines of "fools and fanatics are so sure of themselves but wise men are so full of doubt".

There could be a message there in the timing of its appearance, but of course that would be quackery

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What are the asteroids and why did Earth stay in the same orbit after being struck by a Mars sized object?

It's purely a conjecture.

Originally posted by Berzerker
We're discussing a theory about how Earth got here given the evidence it didn't form here.

What evidence may that be?

Originally posted by Berzerker
2:1 is a pattern, true? Isn't that relevant by itself?

Maybe, maybe not. It's not going to be of any use if you get to it if you arrive at this "sacred ratio" by numerological means.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which one of these physical principles says Pluto was not ejected from the Saturnian system?

Maybe if you can first construct a model of how such an ejection would be physically possible first.

[Berzerker]

Lung -

Dear, oh dear. The more i look the worse it gets. The whole point of my jumping to conclusions and assuming it to be pseudoscientific quackery is that it stands out like a pimple on a nose.

As i said before, i didn't even bother reading the post, i just went straight to google as i knew i could easily find evidence to the contrary. I should of course debunk it scientifically, but when the debunking is aimed at someone who shows contempt at the scientific process i hardly see the need.

Anyway, i did so without even bothering to find out who the hell Sitchin is.

As opposed to your scientific process - mix apples and oranges, make assumptions and jump to conclusions.

Winston -

But the Titius-Bode's Law accounts perfectly for the Earth's present location, contrary to your 2:1 theory which just suggests that it "should have been" in the Asteroid Belt.

Also, can we agree that the deviations from the "pattern" are far, far smaller with Titius-Bode?

Titus Bode is fine in certain respects, it predicts a planet at the asteroid belt and is close to the 2:1 ratio if Earth is placed there. But it relies on an Earth where it is now and I don't believe the Earth could have survived such a massive collision without obtaining a new orbit. This is what the Bible means when it describes "God" imparting certain attributes - like night and day - to the Earth... A result of the collision...

Ramo -

No, I didn't.

I thought you argued that we'd find similiar relationships between other pairs of planets, that I was seeing a pattern in random numbers?

A pattern of what?

Each successive planet is twice as far - 2:1 ratio.

There's no physical reason why that particular formula should have a 2:1 ratio for consecutive satellites.

And yet that's what we see.

As I said, there are physical principles underlying celestial mechanics, not numerology.

So what physical principle says Pluto could not have orbited Saturn?

Just wondering, what does this have to do with Pluto being a moon of Saturn?

Sigh, read my posts According to a theory offered by Sitchin, an intruding "planet" following a highly elliptical, retrograde orbit, was involved with a collision between it's moons and a planet at the asteroid belt. But before this encounter occured, the passage of this intruder thru the solar system caused other disturbances. Like Pluto's ejection from a Saturnian orbit. Sitchin based this theory on his interpretation of Mesopotamian religious texts and ceremonies like the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma Elish) and their New Years ceremony (Akitu?) in which the creation epic is acted out.

Yes it is. Can you demonstrate why this has any relevance?

I'm not an expert on celestial mechanics, but it seems to me a 2:1 ratio between Pluto's perihelion and aphelion once Saturn's distance in AU is subtracted from Pluto's orbit is not a coincidence.

But they don't (Winston's formula is certainly not a 2:1 ratio). There simply is no physical reason to think that the planets should line up in a 2:1 ratio in particular.

They do line up if earth is at the asteroid belt, sheesh! So, did the Earth suffer and survive a collision with a Mars sized object as many astronomers believe? If so, where did this collision take place? Here? How could a planet strike such a large object and retain it's orbit? Wouldn't you agree the odds are overwhelming that the collision would result in a change of orbit.

never stated that. It's entirely in the realm of possibility that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn. There's just no physical reason to think that in particular, any more than Pluto was a satellite of Earth. Numerology don't cut it.

Earth's equator never points at Pluto's perihelion or aphelion. Earth and Pluto do not share ascending and descending nodes. Subtracting Earth's distance of 1 AU from Pluto's 29 and 49 AU doesn't produce a 2:1 ratio.

Kuci

Uh, Pax, why are you complaining about other people complaining about the idiocy in the world?

Pax doesn't share your opinion that I've behaved like an idiot. Lung does, but if I were you I sure wouldn't broadcast that lest others read Lung's posts. The only people to comment on his arguments did so to correct his mistakes.

[Berzerker]

Lung -

It does have a nice ring to it, i must admit. It could suggest that matter thinned out from the Sun at a given rate, but the large mass differences of the planets blow that 'theory' straight out of the water. Mere speculation.

The larger planets have more space in which to accumulate mass, but that would suggest ~equal size. But they are gas giants, their cores are not nearly as massive in comparison to Earth or Venus. When the sun ignited the solar wind enriched the outer system with gas, that explains why they are so massive. And here's an idea, when the sun goes thru it's red giant phase and collapse, it might produce enough heat and material to ignite Jupiter to become the system's next star.

[Ramo]

Berzerker, you're repeating the same things over and over again.

Sigh, read my posts According to a theory offered by Sitchin, an intruding "planet" following a highly elliptical, retrograde orbit, was involved with a collision between it's moons and a planet at the asteroid belt. But before this encounter occured, the passage of this intruder thru the solar system caused other disturbances. Like Pluto's ejection from a Saturnian orbit. Sitchin based this theory on his interpretation of Mesopotamian religious texts and ceremonies like the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma Elish) and their New Years ceremony (Akitu?) in which the creation epic is acted out.

This is why I didn't read your posts: it's a lot of nonsense, Ok, so this has nothing to do with the Saturn/Pluto theory. that's what I wanted to know.

And yet that's what we see.

I thought you argued that we'd find similiar relationships between other pairs of planets, that I was seeing a pattern in random numbers?

No, I didn't say that these specific patterns exist WRT other planets, but you can find patterns in basically any system.

They do line up if earth is at the asteroid belt, shees

No, they don't. I'll repeat Winston's numbers:
Mercury - (0.39)
Venus - (0.72)
Earth - (1.00)
Mars - (1.52)
Jupiter - (5.20)
Saturn - (9.55)
Uranus - (19.22)
Neptune (30.1) (just looked that up)
Pluto (39.5) (and that too)

So, most of the time, the pattern widely diverges from the 2:1 ratio. Only 3 of these instances you can say are somewhat close, and only one is really close. As I said, numerology.

Earth's equator never points at Pluto's perihelion or aphelion. Earth and Pluto do not share ascending and descending nodes. Subtracting Earth's distance of 1 AU from Pluto's 29 and 49 AU doesn't produce a 2:1 ratio.

Even if all this were true, none of this is relevant with respect to your hypothesis. At all. Period.

I'm not an expert on celestial mechanics, but it seems to me a 2:1 ratio between Pluto's perihelion and aphelion once Saturn's distance in AU is subtracted from Pluto's orbit is not a coincidence.

Telll, on what basis do you say that? What physical law makes you think that?

So what physical principle says Pluto could not have orbited Saturn?

Why do you repeat the same strawmen even after they're refuted?