Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Berzerker]

Ger -

Do you at least now see how Saturn is not 'pointing' at Pluto even at pluto's perihelion? 26.8 degrees isn't 24.15 degrees.

I see you didn't use the numbers I used.

Ramo

How do you know that this 2:1 ratio is related to planet formation in a collapsing nebula?

By observing the locations of planets in our solar system.

[Ramo]

By observing the locations of planets in our solar system.

So, circular logic?

[Berzerker]

Ramo, I don't know what your problem is, you say you don't read my posts but you keep asking questions I've already answered. Go read!

The point is, why should the pattern apply to only the first 7 planets? Why are you ignoring Neptune and Pluto? Or was Neptune also a former moon?

I already explained that 10 AU, the distance between Neptune and Uranus, may be enough for an outer planet to form. That doesn't mean the 2:1 ratio doesn't work for the first 7 planets.

You brought up the 2:1 nonsense when I was criticizing your assertion WRT Saturn/Pluto. Clearly, it's you who isn't reading my post.

I brought it up, so what? You asked me why and I told you why, sheesh!

Incomplete information. You can't say. If you weren't reading my posts, angular momentum isn't conserved since there isn't a central force in the transition, so there's no simple way to determine this.

There is always a transitional force, the momentum Pluto has upon escape, it's trajectory wrt Saturn's ecliptic, all under the influence - force - of gravity.

Just about any combination is possible. This 2/3 thing isn't meaningful. More numerology.

The reason Neptune and Pluto don't come near each other is because of a 2/3rds resonance...just numerology...

Why is it relevant?

Numerology. I'm tired of repeating myself, Ramo.

Astronomers figure things out based on physical principles, not numerical cooincidences.

They look for numerical "coincidences" to find physical laws. One numerical coincidence astronomers used to conclude Pluto escaped from Neptune was the 2/3rds resonance in their orbits. Another numerical coincidence led to the Titus-Bode law and the discovery of the asteroids.

Why not?

I just told you and you left my explanation out of that quote, real nice, Ramo.

You asked for connections between the two.

No, I asked for connections to support a conclusion.
Your conclusion isn't supported by anything you said.

I didn't assert that they were meaningful, my point was that you can find patterns in everything.

Why offer connections that have no connection by your own admission?

[Berzerker]

So, circular logic?

If a 2:1 ratio appears in the locations of 7 out of 8 planets, then what conclusion would you reach? That these planets formed with a 2.1 ratio and this is significant? Or would you say it's meaningless? What is circular about looking at the solar system and observing a pattern in their distribution? Astronomers do it all the time...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ger -

That's a strange argument after you raised precession.



Longitude was related to their ascending and descending nodes, not perihelion.



Where did I specify Saturn's perihelion. I used the mean when I did my calculations and that increases the angle. If we used Saturn's aphelion the angle increases even more. Re-calculate using Saturn's mean and aphelion. One more thing, when I did my calculations I had to account for Saturn's inclination to the ecliptic. That made maybe a .5 degree difference (not sure on that one).

Another interesting thing, the ecliptic plane is 7 degrees off the sun's equator. That indicates another large member of the solar system that didn't form within the nebula, another planet with a highly elliptical, retrograde (comets), inclined orbit. Planets formed in a solar nebula should not have 7 degrees of tilt without some outside influence and Mercury (I believe) is inclined to the ecliptic by 7 degrees, same as the sun.

I assumed you had decided to just conveniently ignore precession so I figured it might be fun to see if the correlation meant anything even if we just ignored precession and conveniently lined everything up however we liked.

Since you claim I used the wrong numbers why don't you show us with simple trigonometry just how and under what circumstances Saturn will 'point' to Pluto's perihelion (or whatever it is you claim 'Saturn pointing at pluto' really means).


Let's see the numbers. I suspect they don't add up and even if they do I want to see exaclty which numbers were selected.

However, with respect to saturn's inclination with respect to the ecliptic that will add yet antoher element that will complicate the 'pointing' since now not only will Saturn have to be at it's northern hemisphere summer solstice the solstice will also have to occur at the side of the orbit in which Saturns inclination with respect to the ecliptic helps line it up with pluto. Otherwise the ecliptic deviation will make the correlation even less accurate. So by omiting saturn's inclination with respect to the ecliptic I actually split the difference since sometimes that will line it up and other times that will make the pointing even less accurate.

[Berzerker]

in 1986, A.S. Guliev in Azerbaidzhan used orbits of long-period comets to derive the orbital elements of a single Planet X at a distance of 36.2 AU, and more recently the orbital planes with inclination of about 30 arc degrees to the ecliptic for two Planets X at distances of 48.5-56.6 AU and 102-112 AU respectively.

Hmm...an astronomer using "numerology" to track a possible planet.

Ger

I assumed you had decided to just conveniently ignore precession so I figured it might be fun to see if the correlation meant anything even if we just ignored precession and conveniently lined everything up however we liked.

I didn't ignore your argument about precession, I said precession on Saturn and Pluto was very small compared to Earth and said it's irrelevant. Now, why did you make an assertion you know isn't true?

Since you claim I used the wrong numbers why don't you show us with simple trigonometry just how and under what circumstances Saturn will 'point' to Pluto's perihelion (or whatever it is you claim 'Saturn pointing at pluto' really means).

I already told you the flaws with your calculations, fix it. Don't tell me to fix it for you.

Let's see the numbers. I suspect they don't add up and even if they do I want to see exaclty which numbers were selected.

I did this years ago and I'd have to find the book I used for the data and I'm not going to bother. I've done it before, now you can do it.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ramo

By observing the locations of planets in our solar system.

So, circular logic?

Not really. More like the trials and tribulations of a really tiny data set.

Given that:

We know star systems form from collapsing nebula

-and that-

We know our star system (the only system we know anything about) has these 2:1 ratios and 2/3 resonances

-and that-

We have no reason to believe our system is extraordinary

Astronomers had logically concluded that this pattern is the expected result of star formation.

...

Of course, all the hot jupiters we have been finding recently kinda throws a wrench in there, but it was a reasonable theory before then.

[Ramo]

There is always a transitional force, the momentum Pluto has upon escape, it's trajectory wrt Saturn's ecliptic, all under the influence - force - of gravity.

No, there's no central force during the transition between a Saturn orbit and a solar orbit (each can be approximated as a central force). So angular momentum isn't conserved. The laws of physics certainly don't imply that angular momentum is conserved under an arbitrary force.

No, I asked for connections to support a conclusion.
Your conclusion isn't supported by anything you said.

Nor are yours. Which is my point.

and you left my explanation out of that quote, real nice, Ramo.

Because it's not relevant to what I was saying. You completely missed the point.

I already explained that 10 AU, the distance between Neptune and Uranus, may be enough for an outer planet to form.

Why? Why isn't 5 AU enough for Uranus to form? Why isn't .3 AU enough for Earth to form?

That doesn't mean the 2:1 ratio doesn't work for the first 7 planets.

Except it doesn't, given the position of earth. This is all circular.

[Ramo]

If a 2:1 ratio appears in the locations of 7 out of 8 planets, then what conclusion would you reach? That these planets formed with a 2.1 ratio and this is significant? Or would you say it's meaningless? What is circular about looking at the solar system and observing a pattern in their distribution? Astronomers do it all the time...

I asked you why Pluto doesn't follow the 2:1 rule, and you said because it wasn't formed under a collapsing Nebula; then I asked you why this rule holds for collapsing Nebulas, and you bring up that several of the planets supposedly follow the rule (if you fudge some numbers). That's exactly what a circular argument is.

[Ramo]

Not really. More like the trials and tribulations of a really tiny data set

Referring to the particular argument he was making.

Astronomers had logically concluded that this pattern is the expected result of star formation.

****, I really hope that this isn't considered scientifically credible work in astronomy. Then again, they are astronomers.

[The Mad Monk]

Ramo, I'll agree that planet X is totally off the wall, but you're not going to find anybody who thinks Pluto formed in it's current orbit.

Whether it's an ejected moon is another matter entirely, but it's clearly from somewhere else.

[Ramo]

Not arguing that Pluto formed elsewhere specifically, just that the 2:1 rule is a retarded reason to think that.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

No, there's no central force during the transition between a Saturn orbit and a solar orbit (each can be approximated as a central force). So angular momentum isn't conserved. The laws of physics certainly don't imply that angular momentum is conserved under an arbitrary force.

Yes there is, the gravitational center of the solar system is the central force.

Nor are yours. Which is my point.

Saturn's equator pointing to Pluto at perihelion is comparable to the climate on Venus and Mercury?

Because it's not relevant to what I was saying. You completely missed the point.

It is relevant, I explained why the "connections" you came up with to show that Mercury was a moon of Venus don't show that and why the connections Saturn has with Pluto do show that the latter could have been a moon of the former.

Why? Why isn't 5 AU enough for Uranus to form? Why isn't .3 AU enough for Earth to form?

It may be enough if Uranus formed in closer. Obviously Saturn and Jupiter formed 5 AU from each other, but there is no Uranus sized object 5 AU beyond Uranus. I assume you understand what a solar nebula is and that the density of the dust cloud forming the nebula varies with density increasing closer to the center. Further out from the center there is less material so a large planet needs more space in which to gather material. That's why the nebula didn't produce a large planet beyond Neptune, not enough material out there.

Except it doesn't, given the position of earth. This is all circular.

I don't believe the Earth formed here, it formed elsewhere and was pushed here by a collision with at least one Mars sized object.

[Geronimo]

So much about Pluto suggests that it's a Kuiper belt object that I wonder why we wouldn't simply assume that it's odd orbit reflects it's displacment from somewhere further out in the KBO. No need for it to be an escaped satellite of anything. After all, comets have been assumed to get displaced from stable extra-KB orbits for decades.

[Berzerker]

I asked you why Pluto doesn't follow the 2:1 rule, and you said because it wasn't formed under a collapsing Nebula; then I asked you why this rule holds for collapsing Nebulas, and you bring up that several of the planets supposedly follow the rule (if you fudge some numbers). That's exactly what a circular argument is.

No Ramo, I said Pluto formed as a moon orbiting a planet. It didn't form as a planet orbiting the sun with it's own orbit. C'mon, I spend virtually all my time on this thread correcting what people think I said. That's why I use quotes.