Saturn's Rings Point to Pluto

[Az]

for the Nth time: PLUTO IS A VERY SMALL PLANET. It's round and has a sizeable gravity. So is Sedna, so are other large cuiper belt objects. They're planets or planetoids. They're huge in comparison to to you, and the city you live in. It's probably the size of a couple of states. STOP DISSING IT.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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...

Berz, we're not talking about finding objects. We are talking about whether it is possible for Pluto to be a former satellite of Saturn. This requires a model to illustrate the event.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ramo -

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.

Whoa! That's apples and oranges, dude. Moons show up on the equator, not bodies orbiting something else entirely. And no, we would not look at equators pointing to unrelated celestial bodies.

Why? Because we would not find it unless by freakish chance They looked directly upon their planes to hope to see bodies in direct orbit. Bodies not on the plane would show no causation without studying their orbits to see if they cross paths, but of course this would be meaningless as it does not show causation as a body ejected from a particular orbit would not display signs of its previous orbit. Perihelion doesn't mean crap as positions are not fixed in space, not for planets, stars, galaxies, clusters or even superclusters. It's all relative, and a new orbit could not be shown to be relative to any other previous orbit without specific evidence.

My whole point is that you chose to believe Sitchin, despite no independent verification of any of his theories. You might as well bow to a random drunk at your local bar and create a religion about his ramblings, as it would likely be equally valid

Without independent verification, his "theories" can never get past the conjecture stage. Worse still, he bases all of his beliefs of unvalidated interpretations of ancient language texts which were based entirely on superstition and were baseless in science.

come up with something concrete and verifiable and withstands scutiny and we might think about it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lung


Whoa! That's apples and oranges, dude. Moons show up on the equator, not bodies orbiting something else entirely. And no, we would not look at equators pointing to unrelated celestial bodies.

Why? Because we would not find it unless by freakish chance They looked directly upon their planes to hope to see bodies in direct orbit. Bodies not on the plane would show no causation without studying their orbits to see if they cross paths, but of course this would be meaningless as it does not show causation as a body ejected from a particular orbit would not display signs of its previous orbit. Perihelion doesn't mean crap as positions are not fixed in space, not for planets, stars, galaxies, clusters or even superclusters. It's all relative, and a new orbit could not be shown to be relative to any other previous orbit without specific evidence.

My whole point is that you chose to believe Sitchin, despite no independent verification of any of his theories. You might as well bow to a random drunk at your local bar and create a religion about his ramblings, as it would likely be equally valid

Without independent verification, his "theories" can never get past the conjecture stage. Worse still, he bases all of his beliefs of unvalidated interpretations of ancient language texts which were based entirely on superstition and were baseless in science.

come up with something concrete and verifiable and withstands scutiny and we might think about it.

To be fair, while I agree that there is no scientific evidence supporting Sitchin, I don't understand why it would be any more irrational for people to believe him based on his 'interpretations' of Sumerian texts than it is for people to believe in various sects of Islam or christianity which are likewise just based upon particular intepretations of ancient texts.

Sitchin is just more recent than they are.

[Jon Miller]

most of Christianity and Islam and the like don't discuss anything scientific

it is all about the Spiritual, which Science does not properly address (And when you try to make it address, it is misusing science)

this trying to say something that science can address, and so must compete with it

Jon Miller

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
most of Christianity and Islam and the like don't discuss anything scientific

it is all about the Spiritual, which Science does not properly address (And when you try to make it address, it is misusing science)

this trying to say something that science can address, and so must compete with it

Jon Miller

It depends on which sects we are talking about. generally literalists with ancient texts are all alike with respect to how easily they are scientifically debunked. But if you make few if any testable claims you are also relatively safe from debunking..

So far Berz's interpretation of Sitchin seems to be falling into the 'currently untestable' area of belief

Afterall, the only scientifically testable claim he makes is "Saturn's rings have pointed to Plutos' perihelion at at least one point in the past ".

No other testable claims are made AFAIK

[Berzerker]

Lung -

Whoa! That's apples and oranges, dude. Moons show up on the equator, not bodies orbiting something else entirely.

Pluto shows up on the equator of Saturn. And if Mars was closer, and Earth's equator pointed right at it when Mars was near perihelion, you'd be a fool to ignore that coincidence. Of course astronomers look for such "coincidences", they don't know what objects are related until further investigation and these coincidences provide a means of narrowing the search.
If we were looking for a source planet for Pluto, we would look at all sorts of "coincidences" to narrow our search.

And no, we would not look at equators pointing to unrelated celestial bodies.

How do you know what objects are unrelated? That requires investigation and you don't investigate coincidences.

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

Correct, Saturn's perihelion is insignificant because the theory doesn't say Saturn was ejected from an orbit around Pluto. Try to get a grip, you aren't thinking this thru before posting.

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.

The margin of error as you call it was not introduced by me, it's a product of Saturn following an ellipse. If you're going to measure the angles made by Saturn's rings and orbit you need to account for Saturn's range of motion. Geronimo didn't and I corrected the mistake...

Odin -

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.

Given the cataclysmic nature of ejecting a moon from it's orbit around a very large planet, would you not expect additional debris following similar paths? It doesn't matter that you don't consider it a planet, you didn't create Mesopotamian religion nor did you get to identify the planets. Btw, we don't know the extent of this Kuiper "Belt", we've found some objects and that's it. This is how the Oort Cloud came to exist in astronomy, people saw some comets and decided there must be a vast cloud or belt of comets out there somewhere. They used "coincidences" to invent theories...

UR -

Berz, we're not talking about finding objects. We are talking about whether it is possible for Pluto to be a former satellite of Saturn. This requires a model to illustrate the event

So make a model, I've done the hard work of spotting the "coincidences".

Ger -

I agree that there is no scientific evidence supporting Sitchin

On this particular matter or in general? Your calculations are evidence, otherwise why did you bother making the calculations? Because you thought if Saturn didn't point to Pluto that would be evidence I'm wrong. Yet you confirmed Saturn does indeed point to Pluto, but you say that isn't evidence of anything. It's evidence Saturn's rings point to Pluto which is what I've argued all along.

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).

I believe the sun's equator is tilted 7 degrees to the ecliptic, i.e., to Earth's orbit around the sun. Mercury is inclined 7 degrees to the ecliptic as well. So it looks like Mercury orbits the sun's equator much more closely than the other planets. I'm wondering why all the planets don't orbit the sun's equator. The Earth is off by 7 degrees and I'm wondering why. Seems like a lot given how close the two bodies are. Then there's the fact our moon doesn't orbit the earth's equator either even though equatorial orbits are the norm for such large moons in supposedly stable systems.

Lul - say something relevant and I'll respond.

[Whaleboy]

I believe the sun's equator is tilted 7 degrees to the ecliptic, i.e., to Earth's orbit around the sun. Mercury is inclined 7 degrees to the ecliptic as well. So it looks like Mercury orbits the sun's equator much more closely than the other planets. I'm wondering why all the planets don't orbit the sun's equator. The Earth is off by 7 degrees and I'm wondering why. Seems like a lot given how close the two bodies are. Then there's the fact our moon doesn't orbit the earth's equator either even though equatorial orbits are the norm for such large moons in supposedly stable systems.

None of which implies any intelligent design clauses, nor God... nonetheless...

As I recall, the Sun's axial tilt is 7.25 degrees, whereas Mercury's orbital inclination is 7.004 degrees. Check my numbers I'm working on memory here. That does not mean that Mercury's orbit is at a relative angle of 0 to the Sun's equator, consider its orbital perturbation and planetary precession, there is to my knowledge no such example of a stable orbit of one body relative to another with the theoretical exception of Lagrange points four and five, but then we can't use that unless under your pillow you happen to have solved the three-body problem. Again planetary precession makes that example useless in the Solar system (note the Trojan asteriods, of which Jupiter has 1600-1700 known) Even in the Earth-Moon system obliquity-induced precession causes the Moon to move away at a rate of 0.1 - 0.3 metres (or so) per year (might be a little out on those numbers there).

I doubt you will be able to find an example of a 0 degree inclination equatorial orbit, with the possible exception of close-proximity binary star systems or (and I'll have to work this one out because their size and irregularity will have a part to play here) the Pluto-Charon system, in either case, the figure will be close to zero but not there.

You must of course include planetary precession and orbital perturbation in any consideration of these things, as well as the effect of impacts. Note as well that in observed planetary disks around young stars, the shape has been a taurus, which means most of the bodies have an eccentric and inclined orbit relative to the star.

[Berzerker]

None of which implies any intelligent design clauses, nor God... nonetheless...

Never said otherwise.

As for precession, that effects Mercury's tilt and perihelion/aphelion. And any discrepancy between the solar equator and Mercury's orbital inclination to it is effected by the planets just as precession effects Mercury's orbit in other ways. The planets don't orbit the sun's equator so they pull any object that does away. Mercury is the most immune given it's proximty to the sun, but why do the other planets have orbits off the solar "ecliptic"? We haven't seen other planetary systems forming like that because we can't see into collapsing nebula to identify forming planets and their orbits.

Unless there is another explanation to this problem, I suspect the cause is another object in our solar system, albeit in a highly elliptical orbit, that is quite far off the solar ecliptic pulling everything out of alignment - an object that did not originally form in the nebula but entered the system after the planets had formed.

[Whaleboy]

Ummm, that's pretty twisted I must say, consider that within certain bounds, the manifestations of differing orbits over time is very much like an open chaotic system, the Sun being the obvious attractor, you cannot then go to suggest another attractor based upon the nature of that. Indeed, if there was some other large object a) we would likely have been able to see it b) deduce its orbit from the effect it has on other planets and c) if it was far out enough for us not to see it, it's orbital eccentricity and radius must be great, similar to that of an Oort Cloud comet, so it's effect over time would be negligible compared to the other planets. Also it would have disruped the Oort cloud, and we have only been able to induce its size and geometry by the aphelions of various comets, such orbits would be disruped by the presence of a large body, so our conclusions of the Oort cloud shown impossible.

Note that the Solar ecliptic is the plane of the Suns orbit relative to galactic centre, as a result we use a geocentric model with the Earth at 0 degrees.

You also seem to suggest that the planets might have started out at 0 degrees relative to solar equator, is that your suggestion, if so, where is your evidence, with reference to the taurus shaped proto-planetary disks we have seen (such as that around MWC480)?

I would very much like to see your evidence for this body you suggest, even if it is implied in the accretion theory, which of course denies your conclusion because of the relative sparisity, size, speed and composition of proto-planetary disks at far-out distances.

[germanos]

For those of you who are interested in Saturn's moons:








With all respect to the ancients, we have stories from our life-time as well

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/latest/index.cfm

[Whaleboy]

Beautiful shots

[JohnT]

Again... I'm not too sure what Berzerker is trying to prove, much less argue, here.

... that the ancients aren't as dumb as we thought they were?

... that by using mathematical ratios one can determine the early history of the solar system?

... That Saturn and Pluto are somehow related? (If so, why does that matter, and, if so, why bring non-modern "evidence" into the issue)?

[Whaleboy]

I eagerly await a response to JohnT's question... *Whaleboy masticates on mince pie*

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The margin of error as you call it was not introduced by me, it's a product of Saturn following an ellipse. If you're going to measure the angles made by Saturn's rings and orbit you need to account for Saturn's range of motion. Geronimo didn't and I corrected the mistake...

ahem

actually, you couldn't be arsed to do your calculations for us, so I had to 'fix' them according to your specifications for you. Give credit where credit is due.