Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Flandrien]

It is six letters though.

[Ramo]

Do you have to bring facts into this?


Where are your references to ancient gods, flying pyramid builders and running widdershins around cockerels' livers?


I anathematize you, heretic!


Let all who see the unbeliever Ramo, deliver him up to the scared astrologer priests so that his liver may furnish the dinner table of the gods with wholesome pate.

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

[Berzerker]

DRose, "Sedna" doesn't count since that is the creator , i.e., the POV or perspective of the gods - heaven - and distinct from creation.

Ramo

Are you saying that the angular momentum of Pluto wrt the Sun is in the same direction of the spin angular momentum of Saturn?

While that'd be a very odd co-incidence if true (I couldn't find a reference to this theory on google), I don't see how that would imply that Pluto used to be a moon of Saturn. It's true that angular momentum is conserved under a central force, but under this theory, Pluto wouldn't be subject to the same central force (first gravity due to Saturn, then gravity due to the sun) so angular momentum isn't a conserved quantity, and that's assuming that the collision or whatever that caused Pluto to fly off didn't change its angular momentum

No, there are 3-4 phenomenon linking Saturn with Pluto with more anomalies linking Earth with the asteroids..

1) When Pluto nears perihelion Saturn's rings/equator points to it when both planets are on the same side of the sun. This is very significant given astronomers know how to find planets - look along the ecliptic. So the same principle applies to identifying the possible source planet for various "debris" and anomalies like Pluto.

2) Pluto and Saturn ascend the ecliptic (ascending node) at nearly the same location, albeit at different distances. That is significant because it means they also descend below the ecliptic near the same point.

3) Pluto's orbit offers strong clues it was ejected out of a prior orbit.

4) Subtract Saturn's distance from the sun from Pluto (a highly eccentric orbit almost doubling it's closest approach)
and we see a nice 2:1 ratio.

An astronomer found a peculiarity regarding planetary distances from the sun (Flandern I think was his name) where the planets out to Uranus follow a 2:1 ratio with 1 exception - the Earth. Venus is ~2x as far as Mercury, Mars ~2x as far as Venus, the asteroid belt is ~2x as far as Mars, Jupiter is ~2x as far as the asteroid belt, Saturn 2x as far as Jupiter, and Uranus ~2x as far as Saturn. At some point between 20 and 30 A.U. the ratiio breaks down due to the amount of material avaliable for planetary formation in a solar nebula. But to make this work, we have to put the Earth at the asteroid belt!

In Dante's Inferno there is very strange information about Heaven and Hell (read Hamlet's Mill for the analysis). Dante, working off Virgil who in turn worked off Greek authors, painted what at first appears to be a trip underground but becomes inundated with celestial imagery. And in it he describes some sort of "barrier" marking a descent from Heaven into the Underworld, a red river guarded by 2 sentries. This red river is Mars, a planet with 2 small satellites. That's why astronomers named these moons Phobos and Deimos after the horses pulling Ares/Mars chariot across the sky. The "Underworld" of mythology may mean a cave, but in astronomical mythology it refers to the sky or space below Heaven. And we know that one day our sun will go thru a red giant phase, expand and envelope the inner solar system out to Mars or the asteroid belt before becoming a red dwarf.

Was it this fate awaiting the inner planets, including Earth, being described as "hell" or judgement day by the ancient
astronomers?

[DRoseDARs]

Oh for Christ' sakes, I said "JUST TO GIVE IT A NAME"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


1) When Pluto nears perihelion Saturn's rings/equator points to it when both planets are on the same side of the sun.
This is very significant given astronomers know how to find planets - look along the ecliptic. So the same principle applies to identifying the possible source planet for various "debris" and anomalies like Pluto.

This is incorrect. Saturn's axis is tilted 26.73 degrees whereas Pluto's inclination of it's orbit around the Sun is 17.14 degrees. Pluto simply does not lie on the same plane as the saturn system. In fact the closest planetary axis of rotation to pluto's inclination of orbit is that of the Earth. So obviously Pluto is in fact an escaped moon of the Earth. It is indeed strange that astronomers have failed to notice this remarkable association.

Originally posted by Berzerker
2) Pluto and Saturn ascend the ecliptic (ascending node) at nearly the same location, albeit at different distances. That is significant because it means they also descend below the ecliptic near the same point.

these points gradually drift over time at a rate directly related to the period of the oribit so given the enormous difference in the orbital period's of Saturn and pluto and such alignment of oribital axis will be temporary and therefore necessarily coincidental.

Originally posted by Berzerker

3) Pluto's orbit offers strong clues it was ejected out of a prior orbit.

These clues merely suggest pluto's orbit has been highly perturbed. previously orbiting another planet is simply one possib le explanation.

Originally posted by Berzerker
4) Subtract Saturn's distance from the sun from Pluto (a highly eccentric orbit almost doubling it's closest approach)
and we see a nice 2:1 ratio.

Precisely because Pluto's oribit is so eccentric it is impossible for it to establish a ratio between it and saturn's distance from the Sun. Are you talking about average distance? even that would not give a 2:1 ratio,

Curiously, Uranus has a nice 2:1 ratio of distance from the Sun with respect to Saturn. Perhaps Uranus is really the escaped satellite of Saturn?

Originally posted by Berzerker
An astronomer found a peculiarity regarding planetary distances from the sun (Flandern I think was his name) where the planets out to Uranus follow a 2:1 ratio with 1 exception - the Earth. Venus is ~2x as far as Mercury, Mars ~2x as far as Venus, the asteroid belt is ~2x as far as Mars, Jupiter is ~2x as far as the asteroid belt, Saturn 2x as far as Jupiter, and Uranus ~2x as far as Saturn. At some point between 20 and 30 A.U. the ratiio breaks down due to the amount of material avaliable for planetary formation in a solar nebula. But to make this work, we have to put the Earth at the asteroid belt!

This rule as you can see is a far less accurate predictor of planetary distances for our solar system than the well known Titus-Bode Rule so I don't understand why anyone would think this rule to be the more useful or meaningful. Moving the earth from the asteroid belt to it's current orbit while maintaing such a low oribtal eccentricity would be quite a feat!

Originally posted by Berzerker
In Dante's Inferno there is very strange information about Heaven and Hell (read Hamlet's Mill for the analysis). Dante, working off Virgil who in turn worked off Greek authors, painted what at first appears to be a trip underground but becomes inundated with celestial imagery. And in it he describes some sort of "barrier" marking a descent from Heaven into the Underworld, a red river guarded by 2 sentries. This red river is Mars, a planet with 2 small satellites. That's why astronomers named these moons Phobos and Deimos after the horses pulling Ares/Mars chariot across the sky. The "Underworld" of mythology may mean a cave, but in astronomical mythology it refers to the sky or space below Heaven. And we know that one day our sun will go thru a red giant phase, expand and envelope the inner solar system out to Mars or the asteroid belt before becoming a red dwarf.

Was it this fate awaiting the inner planets, including Earth, being described as "hell" or judgement day by the ancient
astronomers?

Why would the ancients describe a planet as a river? How do the miniscule tiny captured astroid moons guard this 'river' in any meaningful way? And why would judgement day be discussed in relation to an event so far in the future that it would either be prevented or occur long after civilization had already died out due to some other more immediate 'judgement day'?

[Ramo]

Berzerker, even if all that were true, I don't see how any of that implies that Pluto was a moon of Saturn. Granted, I study physics rather than astronomy, but I don't see any such connection.

[asleepathewheel]

So when was this 10th planet scheduled to make its return?

[Berzerker]

DRose -

Oh for Christ' sakes, I said "JUST TO GIVE IT A NAME"

I assumed that, so what's your problem? What did I say to make you think otherwise?

Geronimo -

This is incorrect. Saturn's axis is tilted 26.73 degrees whereas Pluto's inclination of it's orbit around the Sun is 17.14 degrees. Pluto simply does not lie on the same plane as the saturn system. In fact the closest planetary axis of rotation to pluto's inclination of orbit is that of the Earth. So obviously Pluto is in fact an escaped moon of the Earth. It is indeed strange that astronomers have failed to notice this remarkable association.

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).

these points gradually drift over time at a rate directly related to the period of the oribit so given the enormous difference in the orbital period's of Saturn and pluto and such alignment of oribital axis will be temporary and therefore necessarily coincidental.

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.

These clues merely suggest pluto's orbit has been highly perturbed. previously orbiting another planet is simply one possib le explanation.

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

[quote]Precisely because Pluto's oribit is so eccentric it is impossible for it to establish a ratio between it and saturn's distance from the Sun. Are you talking about average distance? even that would not give a 2:1 ratio,

Curiously, Uranus has a nice 2:1 ratio of distance from the Sun with respect to Saturn. Perhaps Uranus is really the escaped satellite of Saturn?

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...

This rule as you can see is a far less accurate predictor of planetary distances for our solar system than the well known Titus-Bode Rule so I don't understand why anyone would think this rule to be the more useful or meaningful.

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.

Moving the earth from the asteroid belt to it's current orbit while maintaing such a low oribtal eccentricity would be quite a feat!

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?

Why would the ancients describe a planet as a river?

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

How do the miniscule tiny captured astroid moons guard this 'river' in any meaningful way?

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.

Ramo -

Berzerker, even if all that were true, I don't see how any of that implies that Pluto was a moon of Saturn. Granted, I study physics rather than astronomy, but I don't see any such connection.

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.





[quote]And why would judgement day be discussed in relation to an event so far in the future that it would either be prevented or occur long after civilization had already died out due to some other more immediate 'judgement day'?

[Berzerker]

Every 3600 years or so. The question becomes: when did it last swing by?

[Ramo]

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

As I said, this doesn't suggest that Pluto was a moon of Saturn in any way that I can see. And I do know a fair amount about celestial mechanics.

And as Geronimo pointed out, 3 is clearly wrong since Pluto's and Saturn's orbits' eccentricities are totally different.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yeah but it is under the size limit to have other shapes.

Really?


Eros is way smaller than sedna, and still is peanut shaped, and not spherical.

Other than that, I don't want to get into that debate again. Let's call it a planetoid, and be done with that.

Btw, do why don't we consider moons planets? why does their orbit matter?

I dont understand.
I said it was under the size limit to have other shapes.
Meaning under the limit you can have many shapes, over the size limit you quickly become spherical.
You point to a smaller object that is peanut shaped...
how does that show anything

the worse is I think we agree

About the actual limit, I have one of my Astronomy books in front of me with a derivation of approximately 600 km as radius for an object made of silicates at which the gravitational pressure makes the object in a sphere.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Berzerker


An astronomer found a peculiarity regarding planetary distances from the sun (Flandern I think was his name) where the planets out to Uranus follow a 2:1 ratio with 1 exception - the Earth. Venus is ~2x as far as Mercury, Mars ~2x as far as Venus, the asteroid belt is ~2x as far as Mars, Jupiter is ~2x as far as the asteroid belt, Saturn 2x as far as Jupiter, and Uranus ~2x as far as Saturn. At some point between 20 and 30 A.U. the ratiio breaks down due to the amount of material avaliable for planetary formation in a solar nebula. But to make this work, we have to put the Earth at the asteroid belt!

Btw most of your arguments are random nothingness which wouldnt resist any serious analysis and your conclusions certainly are ever worse.
Just for fun and since I was bored I decided to check this one which struck my attention

Here are the distance's average distance to the sun in (AU) , we can use perihelion or whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
sequence of 9 numbers
Mercury .387
Venus .723
Earth 1.000
Mars 1.520
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2
Neptune 30.1
Pluto 39.4
Im skipping the belt because It wasnt in the table I found and im too lazy to look for data.

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)...

Now anybody who has done any work with random sequence and psychology, knows that the human brain likes to look for patterns where there are nones.


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.


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.


Just an example :
compute sin(11) (in radians) to a few significant digit
you ll get -1 an integer !! to 6 significant digits
Maybe something is at work?
No.
Coincidence.

Anyway, I await the answer to my challenge
Im sure other Apolytoners will have lots of fun..

[BustaMike]

Stop using your "reasoning and logic" to argue with the psuedo-science

[Imran Siddiqui]

I prefer the term 'junk science' to describe what Berz is peddling here .

[Dracon II]

Tell it to your CSICOP buddies, sceptic! Do not pollute us with your foul reason!