Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Ramo]

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

No. You completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm referring to using the direction of the angular momentum of Pluto about Saturn (i.e. the spin angular momentum of Saturn), and then the angular momentum about the sun as a conserved quantity as you seem to be suggesting. It ain't. Since the central force in one situation is from Saturn, and in the tother is the sun.

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

They're comparable in that they both have about the same relevance to their respective hypotheses (i.e. none).

It is relevant, I explained [...] why the connections Saturn has with Pluto do show that the latter could have been a moon of the former.

Where?

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.

Where are you getting the numbers, though? Why is 5 AU not enough of a distance for Uranus to from?

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.

Reread what I wrote, 'cuz clearly you didn't the first time.

[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.

As I said, this is all circular.

[Berzerker]

Ger -

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.

I have a question about this Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud,

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.

Why did this guy argue for a planet X with 30 degree inclination to the ecliptic after studying long period comets? Is the Kuiper Belt a literal belt like the asteroids, i.e., confined enough to constitute a trail of planetary debris or is it much more expansive? Better yet, this Oort Cloud is supposed to form a 360 degree layer like the skin of a basketball. Why don't we see these long period comets coming in from all angles? I know there are some with pretty wild angles but this astronomer I cited concluded that enough of them indicate a 30 degree orbital inclination for planet X.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

No. You completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm referring to using the direction of the angular momentum of Pluto about Saturn (i.e. the spin angular momentum of Saturn), and then the angular momentum about the sun as a conserved quantity as you seem to be suggesting. It ain't. Since the central force in one situation is from Saturn, and in the tother is the sun.

I didn't say it would be easy to calculate, but don't we do it every time we send a rocket to another planet? We can estimate the unknowns by using existing planetary systems, i.e., how fast does Titan orbit Saturn? If released from it's orbit, how far would it travel away from the solar system before being overtaken by the center of gravity? We already know Saturn's equator points to Pluto at perihelion so I'm sure we could figure out what would be required for Pluto to attain it's current orbit after being ejected from Saturn. Pluto looks like it was split in two...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


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

Ger

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?



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



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.

Do it myself eh?

let's see, your objections were that I used Saturns perihelion distance and that I didn't account for Saturns inclination to the ecliptic right?

Since Saturn's inclination to the ecliptic can both work for or against the pointing dependant on when it is checked I'll calculate for the two extremes to get the possible range of effect of Saturns inclination wrt to the ecliptic. This can be done simply by adding saturns inclination to the angle A for one extreme and subtracting it for the other.

To satisfy your complaints about using the Saturns perihelion distance I'll use the mean distance as you claimed to have done.



b = Saturns mean distance from the Sun 1.429 billion km

c = Pluto's distance from the Sun at it's own perihelion : 4.435 billion km

angle A the angle formed by b and c at the Sun (Plutos' oribital inclination either plus or minus Saturns orbital inclination of 2.49 degrees) giving either 19.69 or 14.7 degrees

now using
a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - 2bc cosA
we can obtain 3.126 billion km as the distance from saturn to Plutos' perihelion a when A = 19.69 degrees

-or-

we can obtain 3.074 billion km as the distance from saturn to Plutos' perihelion a when A = 14.70 degrees

using both of these values of a for the Saturn Pluto distance we can compute the angle C formed by sides b and a and subtract this angle C from 180 to calculate the tilt of Saturn if it is 'pointing' at Pluto's perihelion using

c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab cos C

for A=19.69 we find C = 151.45 degrees giving a tilt for a Saturn pointing at pluto's perihelion of 21.49 degrees.

-or-

for A=14.70 we find C = 158.51 degrees giving a tilt for a Saturn pointing at pluto's perihelion of 28.55 degrees.

Note that I used the mean distance of 1.429 billion for Saturn when solving for either extreme of inclination for Saturns orbit. We now have a possible range of angles that Saturn can point under the circumstances you specified of 21.5 degrees to 28.5 degrees. That's quite a range and that is just adjusting for an inclination of 2.49 degrees in Saturns ecliptic. You may argue I suppose that this means that saturns tilt of 26.8 is in this range but that is meaningless since of the 9 planets 4 of them also have tilts in this range suggesting that Saturns odds of having such a tilt by chance are very good indeed.

Anyway you have to adjust quite a few variables in Saturn and plutos relative positions to make Saturn point at pluto. so remind me again what the meaning of the threads title is? It certainly doesn't look like Saturn points at pluto very often does it?

You also haven't addressed the fact that due to Uranus's nearly 90 degree tilted orbit it and it's rings will 'point' at pluto's perihelion quite frequently. What is that that you think makes Saturns relation to Pluto so obvious?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

hey're comparable in that they both have about the same relevance to their respective hypotheses (i.e. none).

Astronomers looked for planets and moons of planets based on the belief these objects would more likely show up along the equator of the object being orbited. Lo and behold they were right even though they dared use "numerology". Now, if we want to investigate whether or not Pluto was ejected from a planetary orbit, we would look to planets with equators that point to Pluto when it's at perihelion or aphelion. You think the process astronomers used to find all sorts of celestial bodies is meaningless numerology.

Where?

In an earlier post.

Where are you getting the numbers, though?

The solar system, our primary source of evidence.

Why is 5 AU not enough of a distance for Uranus to from?

It is if it formed closer in. It isn't enough if it formed where it did or beyond.

As I said, this is all circular.

You repeat that like a mantra but don't explain what you mean. Astronomers generally believe the Earth was struck by a Mars sized object 4+ billion years ago. Did they arrive at that conclsuion using circular logic? If what they say is true, it defies reason to conclude this impact had no effect on the proto-earth's orbit. Is that circular? Where in the solar system do we see evidence of such a collision? Yes, you win a prize - the asteroid belt is where we see evidence of such a collision.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
We already know Saturn's equator points to Pluto at perihelion so I'm sure we could figure out what would be required for Pluto to attain it's current orbit after being ejected from Saturn.

Why don't you ever qualify this? Do you not understand that Saturns equator will not be able to 'point' at pluto as you claim when:

1. Saturn is not near the appropriate solstice. When it is near the other solstice it's equator will point directly away from pluto's orbit.

2. Saturn's position on it's inclination isn't just right resulting in a required pointing tilt too close to the extremes of 21.5 degrees or 28.5 degrees.

3. precession of Saturns orbit prevents it's appropriate solstice from lining up with pluto's perihelion at all (this will usually be the case AFAIK)

4. Saturns tilt on it's orbital axis has precessed such that it fails to point at Pluto.


All of the above have to be properly specified for the 'pointing' to occur. Why don't you ever qualify your statement to reflect this? Have you considered checking this out with an orrery? it can be quite enlightening.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Now, if we want to investigate whether or not Pluto was ejected from a planetary orbit, we would look to planets with equators that point to Pluto when it's at perihelion or aphelion.

since when? Why would pluto's perihelion and aphelion have any significance? Even in the absence of precession (which is never absent but you claim it is negligable on scales of thousands of years with the outer planets) the planets new aphelion and new perihelion would have nothing to do with the old planet. Just look at the solar orbiting satellites we have launched from earth. None of them have perihelions or aphelions that have any special relation to earth's 'ecliptic'. They were all determined by the arbitrary particulars of the manner of their escape from earths gravity dominance. Some had moon fly bys and some were failed interplanetary probes and others were intended to follow a solar polar orbit or what have you but you can't detect any pattern in any of that via their perihelion/aphelion and the ecliptic of the earth.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You repeat that like a mantra but don't explain what you mean. Astronomers generally believe the Earth was struck by a Mars sized object 4+ billion years ago. Did they arrive at that conclsuion using circular logic? If what they say is true, it defies reason to conclude this impact had no effect on the proto-earth's orbit. Is that circular? Where in the solar system do we see evidence of such a collision? Yes, you win a prize - the asteroid belt is where we see evidence of such a collision.

If the mars sized object and Earth came to share pretty much the same orbit before impact then the orbit would hardly change at all post impact. Astronomers don't picutre some sort of zooming comet style orbit for the impactor because if the impact is too high of energy the earth is so totally disrupted that no moon forms and you instead end up having to reform the earth from a huge ring around the sun. The odds of an impact by such a large object that doesnt share a similar orbit to the earth are also pretty small to begin with.

[Ramo]

Don't have time to respond, cuz I'm flying off to Bangladesh in a couple hours, for the next few weeks, so later guys.

[Geronimo]

Here's an interesting article from The Astronomical Journal discussing how Saturn may have developed it's tilted axis.

and here is an excellent article on chaos and orbital disturbances which should give a good idea as to why we would not expect to see any definitive artifact in pluto or Saturns orbit from which we could assume a past relationship.

[Berzerker]

Ger -

You may argue I suppose that this means that saturns tilt of 26.8 is in this range but that is meaningless since of the 9 planets 4 of them also have tilts in this range suggesting that Saturns odds of having such a tilt by chance are very good indeed.

First, thx for doing the calculations but I may have forgot to mention another limitation I used. When I did my calculations I incorporated the ascending nodes of Saturn and Pluto into my figures with the belief they were a clue as to when the ejection occured - where Saturn was wrt the ecliptic (above/below). When I did that I got an angle of ~26 degrees. Unfortunately I can't remember how I used the nodes. Now, having the right tilt only matters if you have the right distance from the sun. Saturn fits into the range because it's at the right distance. The other planets aren't, they're either way too close to the sun or too far away.

Anyway you have to adjust quite a few variables in Saturn and plutos relative positions to make Saturn point at pluto. so remind me again what the meaning of the threads title is? It certainly doesn't look like Saturn points at pluto very often does it?

"Very often"? Did you see that in the thread's title? All it took is once, the time Pluto was ejected from an orbit around Saturn.

You also haven't addressed the fact that due to Uranus's nearly 90 degree tilted orbit it and it's rings will 'point' at pluto's perihelion quite frequently. What is that that you think makes Saturns relation to Pluto so obvious?

That's because I had to think about that and you're right, Uranus could be a souce. Subtracting Uranus' distance from the sun from Pluto's perihelion and aphelion distances produces a 1/3 ratio and I thought the 1:2 ratio produced by Saturn was a clue. There's just one problem, the final piece to the puzzle - Sitchin's interpretation of the Enuma Elish - has Pluto coming from Saturn. If I can get you to the point of accepting Uranus and Saturn as viable sources for Pluto, maybe you will acknowledge that maybe Sitchin's theory based on mythology may have merit.

[Urban Ranger]

nm

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Neither of us have the ability to produce or understand such a model.

The thing is, without even a very primitive model of how such an event could occur, you're talking emptiness. On par with Intelligent Design and Creationism.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That's very close to a 2/3rds ratio. If a moon was ejected from a planetary orbit following a 26.8 degree angle away from the ecliptic, what angle to the ecliptic would it acquire once it entered it's new orbit around the sun?

Insufficient data. We have absolutely no clue wrt to the hows, wheres, and all pertient events in between.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Berzerker


That's because I had to think about that and you're right, Uranus could be a souce. Subtracting Uranus' distance from the sun from Pluto's perihelion and aphelion distances produces a 1/3 ratio and I thought the 1:2 ratio produced by Saturn was a clue. There's just one problem, the final piece to the puzzle - Sitchin's interpretation of the Enuma Elish - has Pluto coming from Saturn. If I can get you to the point of accepting Uranus and Saturn as viable sources for Pluto, maybe you will acknowledge that maybe Sitchin's theory based on mythology may have merit.

Uranus, with its obvious disruption of both the planet and its moons, is a much more likely candidate as a source for Pluto.

[Berzerker]

Ger -

Why don't you ever qualify this?

Because I pwned you. You came up with 24.1? and were acting like a bigshot and I had to correct a flaw in your calculations and now you've shown I was right. I don't need no stinking qualifier.

Do you not understand that Saturns equator will not be able to 'point' at pluto as you claim when:

1. Saturn is not near the appropriate solstice. When it is near the other solstice it's equator will point directly away from pluto's orbit.

I didn't say Saturn's rings point to Pluto now...or in a few years... I'm arguing for an event that occured long ago. Why in the hell do I need a qualifier for that after all this debate?

2. Saturn's postion on it's inclination isn't just right resulting in a required pointing tilt too close to the extremes of 21.5 degrees or 28.5 degrees.

And? Now that you showed Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion you imply I need to know where Saturn was when the ejection occured? I believe the ejection occured below the ecliptic, but that was based on their ascending nodes and I can't remember what I did to reach that conclusion.

3. precession of Saturns orbit prevents it's appropriate solstice from lining up with pluto's perihelion at all (this will usually be the case AFAIK)

That's oxy-moronic, precession is a 360 degree cycle. If Saturn's rings precess away from pointing to Pluto's perihelion, those rings will precess back.

4. Saturns tilt on it's orbital axis has precessed such that it fails to point at Pluto.

Until it precesses back.

All of the above have to be properly specified for the 'pointing' to occur. Why don't you ever qualify your statement to reflect this? Have you considered checking this out with an orrery? it can be quite enlightening.

All of the above is irrelevant, 3 of your 4 points are tied into precession and that's really a circular argument And your other complaint is that Saturn fits easily into the range you found with your calculations. Qualify that

since when? Why would pluto's perihelion and aphelion have any significance? Even in the absence of precession (which is never absent but you claim it is negligable on scales of thousands of years with the outer planets) the planets new aphelion and new perihelion would have nothing to do with the old planet.

First, I never said that about precession, quote me if you think I did. Precession only means that if Saturn's rings can point to Pluto at perihelion at some point in time, it will again because of the same precession that moved the rings away from Pluto.

Just look at the solar orbiting satellites we have launched from earth. None of them have perihelions or aphelions that have any special relation to earth's 'ecliptic'. They were all determined by the arbitrary particulars of the manner of their escape from earths gravity dominance. Some had moon fly bys and some were failed interplanetary probes and others were intended to follow a solar polar orbit or what have you but you can't detect any pattern in any of that via their perihelion/aphelion and the ecliptic of the earth.

What does all that have to do with anything? Were we trying to launch a satellite to simulate an ejection of Pluto from Saturn? No, our goals in launching satellites is for other "particulars".

[Berzerker]

UR -

The thing is, without even a very primitive model of how such an event could occur, you're talking emptiness. On par with Intelligent Design and Creationism.

I'm using the same thought process astronomers used to find all sorts of objects in the solar system - follow the equator or ecliptic. The experts can make the models...

MM -

Uranus, with its obvious disruption of both the planet and its moons, is a much more likely candidate as a source for Pluto.

On second thought, Uranus is an unknown because of that disruption. We have no idea what tilt it had before the event that turned it on its side. Pluto would have had to been ejected after Uranus got toppled and not before.