Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[The Mad Monk]

How about during?

It not just that Uranus got knocked over the way it did, its moons' orbits are wonky and there is strong evidence that at least one of them was completly shattered and re-formed.

[Ted Striker]

head shot

Hey, that descibes what I just did to you and your boy from Canada in the other thread.





*Ted flexes biceps*

[The Mad Monk]

Miranda, for example:

[The Mad Monk]

Increase you medication, Ted.

[Ted Striker]

Sweet, personal attack, the ultimate gravy confirmation after a successful head shot.

Carry on

[The Mad Monk]

Anyway, there's also Arial:



and Titania:


While Oberon shows some enormous craters:

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ger -

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.

Starting with your original general statment "Saturn's rings point to Pluto" and telling me that you reject a calcualtion showing it doesn't because I didn't select an arbitrary position in which it might be able to do so under certain circumstances can't constitute any sort of pwnage. 24.1 is still as accurate as your general statement was and it fits comfortably between the 21.5 and 28.5 extremes.
When Pluto is at perhelion it will almost never find Saturn's rings 'pointing at it'. I've shown that "Saturns rings point to Pluto" is wrong. If you had pwned anybody that would not be the case.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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?

because you continually ask questions like, "then why do Saturn's rings point to Pluto?" when they hardly ever do and other planets do it at least as well.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

This statement is exactly why you need to add qualifiers. you just said "Now that you showed Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion" which is patently bull****. Once every orbit Pluto passes through its perihelion and yet Saturns is almost never 'pointing' at it even though other planets might be. The real problem is this threads title is wrong. It's like saying "the moon points to the sun" given that occasional solar eclipses require that the moon sometimes line up with the sun. Statements like that are wrong if they aren't qualified.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.



Until it precesses back.

Correct. Precession is cyclical.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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

Saturn doesn't fit easily at all. The range of angles isn't the range of angles which will allow it to point to pluto at any given time rather when saturn is lined up to have a chance at 'pointing' at pluto one angle in that range will 'point' to Pluto depending on the other variables. If Saturn's tilt is 26.7 that tilt won't allow it to point at Pluto when the required angle to do so is anywhere else between 21.4 and 28.5. The required angle will almost never be 26.7. Saturn will nearly always get it wrong. At least with respect to pointing to pluto's perihelion.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

correct. This also means any random planet will have to point to pluto from time to time as precesions of both tilt and orbit cycle through their entire range.

Originally posted by Berzerker
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".

My point is that whatever event might dislodge a satellite from an orbit around a planet to a solar orbit will allow for infinite variation in possible positions of perihelion and aphelion without reagrd to wherever the planets ecliptic may have been. The former moon can be pulled almost any which way by the disturbing influence and will almost certainly lose any orbital connection to the planets ecliptic as a result, especially when forced to cross the orbits of other large planets while assuming its final stable orbit.

[Berzerker]

Don't know, striking Uranus and tipping it over would make it an unknown because Pluto would have likely been in an equatorial orbit before Uranus got hit. Imagine the Earth getting hit, what would happen to the moon? It would get plastered too but the fact the Earth got tipped over wouldn't determine the Moon's trajectory out of orbit. It was following an orbit close to Earth's equator before the impact so that tilt is what matters. Pluto would need to be orbiting Uranus' equator after Uranus was turned on it's side and then ejected later to make Uranus' a vaible option.

[/Mongo Mode]

[Berzerker]

Ger -

Starting with your original general statment "Saturn's rings point to Pluto" and telling me that you reject a calcualtion showing it doesn't because I didn't select an arbitrary position in which it might be able to do so under certain circumstances can't constitute any sort of pwnage. 24.1 is still as accurate as your general statement was and it fits comfortably between the 21.5 and 28.5 extremes.
When Pluto is at perhelion it will almost never find Saturn's rings 'pointing at it'. I've shown that "Saturns rings point to Pluto" is wrong. If you had pwned anybody that would not be the case.

Saturn's rings almost never point to Pluto at Perihelion but you proved me wrong? Almost never means sometimes it does point to Pluto. And the pwnage was not that 24.1 was within the range, but that you thought you proved me wrong when you came up with 24.1.

because you continually ask questions like, "then why do Saturn's rings point to Pluto?" when they hardly ever do and other planets do it at least as well

They do, am I supposed to say they dont? And the only planet you identifed as pointing at Pluto was Uranus and that's suspect now. How did Pluto adopt Uranus' characteristics - adopt an equatorial orbit - after Uranus was turned on its side if the impact also caused Pluto to leave Uranus? Pluto had to be ejected afterward. It's possible, but we can't use the event that turned Uranus on its side as the cause.

This statement is exactly why you need to add qualifiers. you just said "Now that you showed Saturn's rings point to Pluto at perihelion" which is patently bull****.

You did show that, the context is they did so in the past, not right now. Why isn't that obvious by now? I thought I gave the context early on in this thread.

Once every orbit Pluto passes through its perihelion and yet Saturns is almost never 'pointing' at it even though other planets might be. The real problem is this threads title is wrong. It's like saying "the moon points to the sun" given that occasional solar eclipses require that the moon sometimes line up with the sun. Statements like that are wrong if they aren't qualified.

Oh God, Now we're going to debate what title I should have used? Did I not make it quite clear over and over that the context of my thread is a one time event deep in the past? Saturn doesn't need to perpetually point to Pluto, the fact it does at all throughout the course of precession is a clue to a celestial mystery.

Saturn doesn't fit easily at all. The range of angles isn't the range of angles which will allow it to point to pluto at any given time rather when saturn is lined up to have a chance at 'pointing' at pluto one angle in that range will 'point' to Pluto depending on the other variables.

How could Saturn constantly point to Pluto? Of course the alignment is cyclical, precession is cyclical.

If Saturn's tilt is 26.7 that tilt won't allow it to point at Pluto when the required angle to do so is anywhere else between 21.4 and 28.5. The required angle will almost never be 26.7. Saturn will nearly always get it wrong. At least with respect to pointing to pluto's perihelion.

Again, that's irrelevant. All we need to confirm my assertion is for Saturn to point to Pluto at perihelion. That shows it's possible Pluto was in an equatorial orbit of Saturn when it was ejected to a new orbit of its own.
Your argument is that because I can't pinpoint where Saturn was in the solar system when this happened so we could calculate the angle from that specific point, the fact Saturn can point to Pluto is irrelevant.

correct. This also means any random planet will have to point to pluto from time to time as precesions of both tilt and orbit cycle through their entire range.

Not true, the inner planets would need a tilt close to Pluto's orbital inclination, they don't. Jupiter has a very slight tilt which never points to Pluto's extremes, and Uranus is an intriguing possibility but still an unknown. How about Neptune? The 2/3rds resonance kind of nullifies that possibility since they have to be on oppposite sides of the solar system for Pluto to reach perihelion.

My point is that whatever event might dislodge a satellite from an orbit around a planet to a solar orbit will allow for infinite variation in possible positions of perihelion and aphelion without reagrd to wherever the planets ecliptic may have been.

The momentum the moon had narrows those possibilities. For example, if we said Pluto reversed course upon leaving Saturn, it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to accomplish that feat. So extreme as to be impossible actually since a planet could not survive the impact needed.

The former moon can be pulled almost any which way by the disturbing influence and will almost certainly lose any orbital connection to the planets ecliptic as a result, especially when forced to cross the orbits of other large planets while assuming its final stable orbit.

That depends on where Uranus and Neptune were at the time, it appears Neptune was on the other side of the solar system. This is true for any ejection of a moon, but we still focus on any planets that line up with the moon. If Pluto was in much closer to Saturn would it become more obvious?

[Berzerker]

Does anyone know why the planets don't orbit the Sun's equator like Mercury? That seems very strange.

[Whaleboy]

Do you mean a relative plane of 0 degrees to the Sun? Or the tidal locking of Mercury's surface to the sun (day length = year length, or day length proportional to year length). In the first case, because Mercury has less gravitational interactions with the other planets, effectively the orbital eccentricity and planes are affected by other planets, over time that has the effect of averaging them out as it were. Mercury only has that from one direction, plus the Sun is its major influence.

As for tidal locking, that's because of the distance to the Sun. I recommend you take a look at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Mechanics.html in order to research these questions (a very useful site). You'll see why I trust centuries of science over religious musings .

You may note the pertebations of mercury's orbit, which Newton cannot account for, note that General Relativity does account for it.

[Odin]

@ this thread

Pluto is the largest of a subgroup of Kuiper Belt objects (I don't consider it a planet) called "Plutinos," objects that were thrown into a 3:2 orbit resonance with Neptune as a result of Neptunes gravity.

About the Moon-forming impact; computer models show that there were several Ceres to Mars-sized objects in Earth's orbit, the largest eventually absorbed some protoplanets and tossed the others out of the solar system and became Earth. the last impacting Mars-sized body formed our moon.

[Lul Thyme]

I notice a lot of people are arguing Bez, and a lot of them I recognize from Science\math Threads...
Its good, it shows theres some spirit

It's lucky there are and were people like that in our history....

Well I guess it depends, if you think that we should be still living in the Middle Ages, and imagining reasons for anything without having to verify them, and that would be a good thing.

But other people think that the Scientific Revolution was a good thing, and have learned the lessons it has taught us.

I dont know how the rest of this thread will go Bezerker.
But I know that somewhere, it doesnt really matter that what you are saying here is clearly scientifically crap...
But that is one conforting thought about science vs arts for example:

It cannot really be stopped.
If Shakespeare hadnt done his plays, nobody would have.
If Newton hadnt formulated his laws, somebody else probably would have, and very soon after in fact....

[Lung]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ger -
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).

Oh, goody! I've been waiting for just the right statement to introduce to you something which renders your numerology coincidental of far less proportions than what you claim. Have you ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers?

To quote Michael Shermer from www.sciam.com "a principle of probability called the Law of Large Numbers shows that an event with a low probability of occurrence in a small number of trials has a high probability of occurrence in a large number of trials"

Having now introduced the entire difference between Saturn's perihelion and its aphelion, you have introduced an enormous margin of error for your "pointing" of Saturn to Pluto Suddenly, your numerology is not nearly as fantastical as you would have us believe.

You have introduced a margin of error measured in whole degrees! Not minutes of seconds, but entire degrees. To say that Saturn points to Pluto, give or take a few percentage points either side renders it not even worthy of mention, let alone 7 pages (and counting) pf posts on the subject.

Leaving aside the fact that numerology is meaningless WRT astronomy, your numerology, as it turns out, doesn't really say much at all anyway

After all, throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded and landing anywhere on it doesn't mean you possess ESP or any other supernatural thing.

That's why i say that pseudoscience is the unscientific dressed up as science. because it's no better than the supernatural passed off as science. The whole point of pseudoscience is to try and give legitimacy to the illegitimate.

[Lung]

Oh, and besides, Pluto's perihelion is significant but Saturn's is not? And yet they have this amazing connection??