Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Lul Thyme]

"You left out the asteroid belt after I specifically said it was needed to complete the 2:1 ratio. Having left the belt out, you then made a big deal about the fact Jupiter is more than 3 x Mars distance. Jupiter is 2x the asteroid belt. Move Earth to the asteroid belt and we see a nice 2:1 ratio for all the planets out to Uranus. It appears 10 A.U. is the maximum amount of space needed to form a planet once you get further from the Sun. So much for that challenge "

OMG
do you even understand or read anything
I skipped them, but then I allowed for that integer to be 4!!!
If you actually read my post
because you know 2*2=4
SO jupiter should be 4 times the distance Mars is, by your theory...
But of course its not really but thats another matter...
I ask you to please actually read my post, and the challenge still stands...

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I forgot to mention the prevalence of 9 stepped pyramids found throughout Mexico and Central America with Chichen Itza being the most famous. A temple, God's house sits atop these 9 steps. And in Toltec mythology, there are 9 rulers of the night.

In North European ancient tradition there were nine 'worlds' or realms within our system. They were arranged in a * shape(which was also the ninth rune in the elder futhark, 'helgaz' and was reguarded as the mother rune, from which all the others can be drawn).
The seventh rune is 'gebo' or 'X' and stands for a gift from the gods.
Numerical systems and their relationships were extremely important for all ancient peoples i would say.
What this all really means is difficult to say - there are many modern day visionaries with answers to all the interesting mathmatical data left by our ancestors.
Some of it incredibely complicated and fleshed out, but most also in 'I've found the one truth' kinda thing; which scientists also do over and over

And thats the point - neither psuedo science/myths or real science will, anytime soon, give us the fundemental answers we have been asking since we started to stand on two feet and look up at the skies.
All they can do at best is give us glimpses into the unknown.
We should see each approach as being part of the same proccess, and we need to carry on following their paths, but dont get blinded by the merrits of each over the other.

Being considerate to each other is probably the best thing we can do untill at some point we may get the answers?

[Ramo]

Find another pair of planets with the relationship identifed in this thread.

Why? You haven't demonstrated how any of this has anything at all to do with Pluto being a satellite of Saturn. The spin/angular momentum thing was at least plausible (if wrong) were that what you were referring, but the things you're bringing up are just totally out there. I don't see this relationship that you suggest in any way whatsoever.

Their eccenticities are irrelevant. Saturn is ~9.5 A.U. from the sun, Pluto is 29 A.U. at it's closest approach and 49 A.U. at it's furthest. Subtract 9.5 and you get a 2:1 ratio.

Dude, this is just crazy numerology. There's no physics at all to back up what you're saying. I can't possibly fathom how this could have any relationship at all with Pluto being a moon of Saturn.

[Berzerker]

Lul - if you need every planet to be exactly twice as far before a lightbulb goes off in your head, then you shouldn't be insulting people about any perceived lack of intelligence.

So I THEREFORE CHALLENGE YOU :

Give me 3 sequences of 9 numbers with a couple significant digits (or not).
I and the rest of skeptics, will be able to choose one of the sequence, create a subsequence of 6 numbers, and reveal that it has a pattern that is even more striking then this "pattern" you showed us. Not the same pattern, but a more striking one.

First, why 6 out of 9? And why 3 sets of numbers? The 2:1 ratio with Earth at the asteroid belt shows 7 planets out of 8 following the pattern, not 6 out of 9, and I already explained why Neptune may not fit the pattern. The first 7 planets follow a 2:1 ratio and you think it's a ******* coincidence?

Here are the relevant numbers:

Mercury .387
Venus .723
Mars 1.520
Earth/Asteroid Belt ~2.7
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2

7 planets with a 2:1 ratio. Oh, but Jupiter isn't 4x as far as Mars, boohoo.

Im skipping the belt because It wasnt in the table I found and im too lazy to look for data.

I told you the earth needs to be placed at the asteroid belt for the 2:1 ratio to work, so don't use your laziness of proof of anything other than your laziness.

Now what you did is take a subsequence of length 6:

Mercury .387
Venus .723
Mars 1.520
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2

Calculated the ratios :
1.87
2.10
3.42
1.83
2.01

which you declared was impressively close to the integer sequence 2,2,4,2,2 (even though some of the terms have about 15% error, I mean 3.42 is closer to 3 than 4)...

Where did I mention 2,2,4,2,2? Those are your numbers, not mine. Here are the numbers again:

Mercury .387
Venus .723
Mars 1.520
Earth/Asteroid Belt ~2.7
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2

[Whaleboy]

That's called Bodes law, at best a measure of gravitational stability of orbits relative to each other.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Lung
What a total crock of ****. It took me about two minutes to debunk this whole piece of pseudoscientific crap with a simple google search.

Saturn and its rings are titled on a plane of 27.6 degrees, while Pluto's orbit is tilted 17 degrees from the plane that every other planet is on. Man, in astronomical terms it's not even close. That about 100 trillion miles off

Why don't you do us all a favour and **** off with your psuedoscience and follow some other nutcase instead who will lead you to commit suicide by jumping on the back of the nearest asteroid or by jumping off a cliff in an expected hyper jump to the afore mentioned asteroid by forces which you cannot see, hear or otherwise identify but which you believe beyond all doubt

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.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

Why? You haven't demonstrated how any of this has anything at all to do with Pluto being a satellite of Saturn. The spin/angular momentum thing was at least plausible (if wrong) were that what you were referring, but the things you're bringing up are just totally out there. I don't see this relationship that you suggest in any way whatsoever.

I'm not going to keep repeating the connections only for you to deny they are relevant. You said there was no greater connection between Saturn and Pluto than any other pair of planets, so name the 2 planets and show them having the same relationship.

Dude, this is just crazy numerology. There's no physics at all to back up what you're saying. I can't possibly fathom how this could have any relationship at all with Pluto being a moon of Saturn.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that when we place earth at the asteroid belt, the first 7 planets follow a 2:1 ratio? Lul says that's not a pattern worthy of consideration, do you agree? Let's see how much of a pattern has to show up before you dare call it a pattern.

[JohnT]

Do you think it's just a coincidence that when we place earth at the asteroid belt, the first 7 planets follow a 2:1 ratio?

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

[child of Thor]

@ JohnT, but maybe that is a clue in itself?

[Winston]

Maybe the following is too basic and common knowledge for the debate you're having. If so, please excuse...

I didn't read the whole discussion you're having on the ratios of planets' distances. But it did make me recall something I once read about this relationship, called Titus-Bodes Law. I just looked it up, and I think it's probably more correct than the patterns you seem to focus on. The following is basically a transcript of the text in my encyclopedia.

The theory suggests that the distances of planets from the Sun are not random, but follows a pattern of 4, 4+(3*2^0), 4+(3*2^1), 4+(3*2^2) etc., all divided by 10 and giving the individual distances measured in AU, Astronomical Units, the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

According to this formula, we get the following distances for the different planets, known at the time or immediately following the theory's publication in 1766 (actual distances in parenthesis):

Mercury - 0.40 (0.39)
Venus - 0.70 (0.72)
Earth - 1.00 (1.00)
Mars - 1.60 (1.52)
??? - 2.80 (---)
Jupiter - 5.20 (5.20)
Saturn - 10.00 (9.55)
Uranus, disc. 1781 - 19.60 (19.22)

It seems to fit rather well, but there's a planet missing at 2.8 AE. However that's approximately in the middle of the Asteroid Belt, located at a distance of 2.3-3.3 AE, so that may explain it. 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.

According to Titus-Bodes Law, the distances to the planets beyond Uranus should be 38.8 and 77.2 AE. Neptune is located at 30.1, while Pluto is at 39.5 AE. Pluto would approximately fit into the pattern, but this may be just a coincidence, considering the excentricity of its plane and also its orbital tilt.

The fact that the two planets Neptune and Pluto don't fit with predictions according to Titus-Bodes has been interpreted by some to indicate that some major disaster took place in the earliest forming of our solar system.

And to me personally, it also raises the question if there's anything worth looking into a little closer at a distance of 77.2 AE from the Sun.

[Winston]

That should have been Titius, not Titus. It's named after German astronomer Johann Titius of Wittenberg, who formulated the theory in 1766, and Johann Bode who publicized it in 1772. Just to set things straight.

[Whaleboy]

Winston

And I never thought I'd type that in a hurry, consider yourself honoured .

[Ramo]

I'm not going to keep repeating the connections only for you to deny they are relevant. You said there was no greater connection between Saturn and Pluto than any other pair of planets, so name the 2 planets and show them having the same relationship.

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.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that when we place earth at the asteroid belt, the first 7 planets follow a 2:1 ratio? Lul says that's not a pattern worthy of consideration, do you agree? Let's see how much of a pattern has to show up before you dare call it a pattern.

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

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

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

[Lung]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lung -

Sounds like you spent more time on Google than reading what I said.

Actually, I did

You don't compare Pluto's orbital inclination to the ecliptic with Saturn's axial tilt. Draw a line from Saturn along it's equator/rings, and you will hit Pluto when it's at perihelion. No other planet does that...

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.

You're just seeing meaning in numbers like the proverbial faces in clouds.

Insulting people from the safety of the internet is like Bill O'Reilly calling people cowards from the safety of his TV studio.

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.

[Lung]

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.

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. True, i was a little over the top, but the whole pseudoscience industry is a great behemoth of lies undermining science and giving unwarranted credit to creationism.

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. I'm even tempted to make up some crap of my own to make a huge following of deluded fools which i can later admit to having made it all up in the first place to show them how easily misled they all are. Of course, they would dismiss me and commit a collective suicide pact or something equally absurd to "maintain the faith".