Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I prefer the term 'junk science' to describe what Berz is peddling here .

I prefer any term that doesn't include the word 'science'

[Lul Thyme]

Well, I know that most of the time its not worth arguing...
But now he has actual data, even a sequence of numbers...
As a mathematician, it was too hard to resist, to be able to give an actual "proof" that any random he gives, will be as much "proof" of the existence of God, of funny little blue furries that his supposed interesting coincidences in the Solar System.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Geronimo -

You aren't using the right angles, draw a line and place the sun at one end and Saturn about a third of the way down the line. Now draw a line above that 3 x times the distance from the sun to Saturn and draw this line from the sun at an angle of 17+ degrees. That's Pluto. Now, draw a line from Saturn to Pluto. We have two angles - the sun to Pluto and Saturn to Pluto. The sun-Pluto angle is 17+ degrees but the Saturn-Pluto angle is 26 + degrees (Saturn is close enough to the ecliptic for a rudimentary measurement).

Ahh I did misunderstand you. I had assumed that you meant that pluto orbited around the sun on approximently the same plane as Saturns ring and satellite system which might have provided some weak indication of a relationship of pluto to saturn at some point. Certainly when you suggested that astronmers look for new planets by looking along the plane of the solar system you implied that was the interpretation you were using since the comnparison otherwise makes no sense.

However it would appear that you are saying that Saturns plane of rotation (along with its ring/satellite system) intersects (ie 'points to') with pluto on its orbital plane around the sun. However, the planes of rotation of all of the other planets (even uranus!) also intersect with the plane of pluto's orbit and even do so in such a way that any rings or satellites they may have will 'point' to pluto at least twice per orbit. The Saturn system doesn't spend any more of its orbital period 'pointing' to pluto than do any of the other planets. Also remember planets don't loiter at perihelion or any other orbital points. The orbital planes are planes not lines. It doesn't make any sense to assume the planets sit around at perihelion waiting for other planets to point at them there. Even worse precession of Saturns rotation ensures that even the special 'distinction' of being able to 'point' at pluto when pluto is at maximum inclination will not last terribly long and other planets will take over this special priviledge as precession lines up their rotational axis with pluto's point of maximum inclination.

Originally posted by Berzerker

The reason astronomers give to explain why Pluto won't collide with Neptune is that Pluto is in a stable orbit - when Neptune is on one side of the sun, Pluto, at it's closest approach, is on the other. That means any variation is ~equal, I'll bet this variation is equal for Saturn too.

it's not.

orbital period of pluto = 248 earth years
orbital period of Neptune = 165 earth years

orbital period of pluto = 1.5 Neptune orbits

they have a nice repeating orbital relationship that guarentees they won't collide.


orbital period of pluto = 248 earth years
orbital period of Saturn = 29.5 earth years

orbital period of pluto = 8.4 Saturn orbits. That doesn't translate into a repeating orbital relationship at all.

Originally posted by Berzerker

Astronomers only believed that after they concluded Pluto wasn't ejected from Neptune. They didn't look at Saturn as a candidate.

Scientists never saw anything about pluto that would only be consistent with it being an escaped satellite either before or after checking neptunes orbit. The fact that it was the only planet to cross the orbit of another planet, it's retrograde rotation, and its tilted orbital plane certainly stood out and scientists like to look for possible explanations for unique charactersists in an otherwise uniform data set but the former Neptune satellite speculation only occured because it wasn't inconsistent with the incomplete data of the time. Saturn was never looked it because our data have never been consistent with pluto being an escaped satellite of Saturn.

Originally posted by Berzerker

I just said Uranus is 2x as far as Saturn, curious. But aside from all the obvious differences between Uranus and Pluto, Saturn's rings don't point ro Uranus. Your anology is flawed...

Saturns rings spend as much time pointing at Uranus as they do pluto.

Originally posted by Berzerker

I said the 2:1 ratio breaks down for 2 reasons - Neptune formed 10 A.U. further out than Uranus, not the 20 A.U. required by the 2:1 ratio. That doesn't mean the 2:1 rule is flawed, it merely means it isn't applicable in the outer reaches of the system, i.e., Neptune only needed 10 A.U. to form, not 20 A.U. The 2nd reason is Earth and the asteroid belt.



But astronomers believe the Earth was struck by a Mars sized object. Do you think such a collision wouldn't result in a new orbit?

The problem is that earth's orbit isn't very perturbed. It's on a very boring typical orbit for a body in our solar system. The collision wouldn't effect Earth's orbit much if the two bodies had shared nearly the same orbit for a considerable time before colliding. If the collision had occured between the earth and a plnet on a markedly different orbit it is highly unlikely that earth would have the nearly circular garden variety non inclined non retrograde boring orbit that it has, and only an impact from a body with a much different orbit from earth could send it spiralling from the freakin' asteroid belt across mars's orbit all the way to 1 AU. How it would then resume a neat circular orbit I have no idea and it's probably impossible.

Originally posted by Berzerker

Because planets "flowed" across the sky on an identifiable course just like rivers.

nonsense! The sumerians were quite aware of the cyclical nature of planetary movements and rivers are an obvious metaphor for a linear motion. Furthermore the planets look like little points of light. Not lines or bands or any other kind of linear river like entity. Had they meant mars they would not have refered to crossing a red river but perhaps to crossing the path of a wanderer or some other moving single location point like entity or individual.

Originally posted by Berzerker

The language of metaphor to make the story more interesting or memorable, but a story written in the sky and out of sight of mere earthlings (unless God wants to give someone a tour). You don't try to teach the ignorant about the complexities of planetary physics, you use metaphors involving phenomenon they can easily understand.

Exactly. Think of a 1st grade teacher telling kids about the solar system. Are they going to use an analogy of a river with two guardians to explain a planet with two tiny moons? It's such a misleading and obtuse metaphor as to be useless and more importantly open to zillions of similar vaguely connected interpretations.

[DRoseDARs]

Berz, apologies if I misunderstood your meaning, but JohnT's comment seemed to show that he thought I made it up to support some theory, and your comment (before you edited it, of course ) looked like you thought I didn't already know the real Sedna was not a planet but just a cold body smaller than a planet and bigger than a large asteroid. John's comment irked me (sorry John, I don't know why but don't think anything of it :shrug: ) but your comment made me want to respond.

*Sigh*
The semester is almost over, stress-level soon shall lower, inner-peace shall return...

[Lul Thyme]

Now I hope this isnt considered a personnal attack...
Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but wasnt Bezerker a "science guy"? Like he would participate in science related thread and even math ones (sorry this one is not close to counting)...

Since when has he turned into a.....
Well.. or is my memory mistaking him for somebody else.
I dont actualyl remember the nickname, but the avatar does ring a bell...

[Boris Godunov]

I think you're confusing him with Ethelred.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Take any other 2 planets and see if they share the following:

1) One points to the other
2) Both ascend and descend the ecliptic at about the same "longitude"
3) Subtract the stellar distance of one from the other and get a 2:1 ratio
4) The creation epic of the civilization that invented writing et al claims one was a companion to the other and were separated by some celestial disturbance.

1) All the other planets spend as much time pointing at pluto as Saturn does.

2) Check this site to understand how it is impossible for relationships between events at a given 'longitude' of solar orbit between two planets to remain for more than a brief while when they exist at all. If two planets "Both ascend and descend the ecliptic at about the same "longitude" they cannot continue to do so for long! certainly not thousands of years.

3) Too bad Pluto and Saturn aren't one of the several planet pairs that enjoy such a 2:1 solar distance ratio.

4) I consider it a plus when a hypothesis in astronomy is inconsistent with ancient sumerian mythology personally.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ramo

Not so loud molly. Else, Zombie Newton will rise up and devour your brain. And take credit for everything you've accomplished.

I ate Zombie Newton with fava beans and a flagon of malmsey.


I am become Condolences Rice, the funereal grain strewer and goddess of agricultural mayhem ! !

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
After we succeed, or if you just resign yourself, you should understand that if you look hard enough in any thing, you will find lots of coincidences, and that this kind of "close fit" (which it is not btw, these numbers are not particularly close to anything, specially since you chose to skip a few just because they didnt fit) is not rare at all.

This is exactly how the so called bible code came about. But the Moby Dick code turns out to be superior.

There's also a section in one of Umberto Eco's books with lots of numerical coincidences.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I think you're confusing him with Ethelred.

did he have the same avatar or very similar looking one?

[Lul Thyme]

I know UR.
But some ppl (in fact most ppl) can be easily fooled into thinking something greater is at work....

[Japher]

hence the Bible... and, Moby Dick!

[floppy_lobster]

Sitchen was on to something.

Something cataclysmic happened in our Solar System at one point in recent times. The Scarring on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The Asteroid belt....Uranus is tilted oddly.

Anyone else out there familiar with the Nemesis theory?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by booger
Sitchen was on to something.

Something cataclysmic happened in our Solar System at one point in recent times. The Scarring on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The Asteroid belt....Uranus is tilted oddly.

Anyone else out there familiar with the Nemesis theory?

Why do you say recently?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
did he have the same avatar or very similar looking one?

Nope. IIRC, it's a ship.