 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Yes there is, the gravitational center of the solar system is the central force. |
No. You completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm referring to using the direction of the angular momentum of Pluto about Saturn (i.e. the spin angular momentum of Saturn), and then the angular momentum about the sun as a conserved quantity as you seem to be suggesting. It ain't. Since the central force in one situation is from Saturn, and in the tother is the sun.
quote:
Saturn's equator pointing to Pluto at perihelion is comparable to the climate on Venus and Mercury? |
They're comparable in that they both have about the same relevance to their respective hypotheses (i.e. none).
quote:
It is relevant, I explained [...] why the connections Saturn has with Pluto do show that the latter could have been a moon of the former. |
Where?
quote:
It may be enough if Uranus formed in closer. Obviously Saturn and Jupiter formed 5 AU from each other, but there is no Uranus sized object 5 AU beyond Uranus. I assume you understand what a solar nebula is and that the density of the dust cloud forming the nebula varies with density increasing closer to the center. Further out from the center there is less material so a large planet needs more space in which to gather material. That's why the nebula didn't produce a large planet beyond Neptune, not enough material out there. |
Where are you getting the numbers, though? Why is 5 AU not enough of a distance for Uranus to from?
quote:
No Ramo, I said Pluto formed as a moon orbiting a planet. It didn't form as a planet orbiting the sun with it's own orbit. C'mon, I spend virtually all my time on this thread correcting what people think I said. That's why I use quotes. |
Reread what I wrote, 'cuz clearly you didn't the first time.
quote:
[I don't believe the Earth formed here, it formed elsewhere and was pushed here by a collision with at least one Mars sized object. |
As I said, this is all circular.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Hmm...an astronomer using "numerology" to track a possible planet.
Ger
I didn't ignore your argument about precession, I said precession on Saturn and Pluto was very small compared to Earth and said it's irrelevant. Now, why did you make an assertion you know isn't true?
I already told you the flaws with your calculations, fix it. Don't tell me to fix it for you.
I did this years ago and I'd have to find the book I used for the data and I'm not going to bother. I've done it before, now you can do it. |
Do it myself eh?
let's see, your objections were that I used Saturns perihelion distance and that I didn't account for Saturns inclination to the ecliptic right?
Since Saturn's inclination to the ecliptic can both work for or against the pointing dependant on when it is checked I'll calculate for the two extremes to get the possible range of effect of Saturns inclination wrt to the ecliptic. This can be done simply by adding saturns inclination to the angle A for one extreme and subtracting it for the other.
To satisfy your complaints about using the Saturns perihelion distance I'll use the mean distance as you claimed to have done.
b = Saturns mean distance from the Sun 1.429 billion km
c = Pluto's distance from the Sun at it's own perihelion : 4.435 billion km
angle A the angle formed by b and c at the Sun (Plutos' oribital inclination either plus or minus Saturns orbital inclination of 2.49 degrees) giving either 19.69 or 14.7 degrees
now using
a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - 2bc cosA
we can obtain 3.126 billion km as the distance from saturn to Plutos' perihelion a when A = 19.69 degrees
-or-
we can obtain 3.074 billion km as the distance from saturn to Plutos' perihelion a when A = 14.70 degrees
using both of these values of a for the Saturn Pluto distance we can compute the angle C formed by sides b and a and subtract this angle C from 180 to calculate the tilt of Saturn if it is 'pointing' at Pluto's perihelion using
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab cos C
for A=19.69 we find C = 151.45 degrees giving a tilt for a Saturn pointing at pluto's perihelion of 21.49 degrees.
-or-
for A=14.70 we find C = 158.51 degrees giving a tilt for a Saturn pointing at pluto's perihelion of 28.55 degrees.
Note that I used the mean distance of 1.429 billion for Saturn when solving for either extreme of inclination for Saturns orbit. We now have a possible range of angles that Saturn can point under the circumstances you specified of 21.5 degrees to 28.5 degrees. That's quite a range and that is just adjusting for an inclination of 2.49 degrees in Saturns ecliptic. You may argue I suppose that this means that saturns tilt of 26.8 is in this range but that is meaningless since of the 9 planets 4 of them also have tilts in this range suggesting that Saturns odds of having such a tilt by chance are very good indeed.
Anyway you have to adjust quite a few variables in Saturn and plutos relative positions to make Saturn point at pluto. so remind me again what the meaning of the threads title is? It certainly doesn't look like Saturn points at pluto very often does it?
You also haven't addressed the fact that due to Uranus's nearly 90 degree tilted orbit it and it's rings will 'point' at pluto's perihelion quite frequently. What is that that you think makes Saturns relation to Pluto so obvious?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
We already know Saturn's equator points to Pluto at perihelion so I'm sure we could figure out what would be required for Pluto to attain it's current orbit after being ejected from Saturn. |
Why don't you ever qualify this? Do you not understand that Saturns equator will not be able to 'point' at pluto as you claim when:
1. Saturn is not near the appropriate solstice. When it is near the other solstice it's equator will point directly away from pluto's orbit.
2. Saturn's position on it's inclination isn't just right resulting in a required pointing tilt too close to the extremes of 21.5 degrees or 28.5 degrees.
3. precession of Saturns orbit prevents it's appropriate solstice from lining up with pluto's perihelion at all (this will usually be the case AFAIK)
4. Saturns tilt on it's orbital axis has precessed such that it fails to point at Pluto.
All of the above have to be properly specified for the 'pointing' to occur. Why don't you ever qualify your statement to reflect this? Have you considered checking this out with an orrery? it can be quite enlightening.
Last edited by Geronimo on 15-12-2004 at 15:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
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.
|
since when? Why would pluto's perihelion and aphelion have any significance? Even in the absence of precession (which is never absent but you claim it is negligable on scales of thousands of years with the outer planets) the planets new aphelion and new perihelion would have nothing to do with the old planet. Just look at the solar orbiting satellites we have launched from earth. None of them have perihelions or aphelions that have any special relation to earth's 'ecliptic'. They were all determined by the arbitrary particulars of the manner of their escape from earths gravity dominance. Some had moon fly bys and some were failed interplanetary probes and others were intended to follow a solar polar orbit or what have you but you can't detect any pattern in any of that via their perihelion/aphelion and the ecliptic of the earth.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You repeat that like a mantra but don't explain what you mean. Astronomers generally believe the Earth was struck by a Mars sized object 4+ billion years ago. Did they arrive at that conclsuion using circular logic? If what they say is true, it defies reason to conclude this impact had no effect on the proto-earth's orbit. Is that circular? Where in the solar system do we see evidence of such a collision? Yes, you win a prize - the asteroid belt is where we see evidence of such a collision. |
If the mars sized object and Earth came to share pretty much the same orbit before impact then the orbit would hardly change at all post impact. Astronomers don't picutre some sort of zooming comet style orbit for the impactor because if the impact is too high of energy the earth is so totally disrupted that no moon forms and you instead end up having to reform the earth from a huge ring around the sun. The odds of an impact by such a large object that doesnt share a similar orbit to the earth are also pretty small to begin with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
Here's an interesting article from The Astronomical Journal discussing how Saturn may have developed it's tilted axis.
and here is an excellent article on chaos and orbital disturbances which should give a good idea as to why we would not expect to see any definitive artifact in pluto or Saturns orbit from which we could assume a past relationship.
Last edited by Geronimo on 15-12-2004 at 15:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
nm
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 15-12-2004 at 15:03
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ger - quote:
Why don't you ever qualify this? |
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.
quote:
Do you not understand that Saturns equator will not be able to 'point' at pluto as you claim when:
1. Saturn is not near the appropriate solstice. When it is near the other solstice it's equator will point directly away from pluto's orbit. |
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?
quote:
2. Saturn's postion on it's inclination isn't just right resulting in a required pointing tilt too close to the extremes of 21.5 degrees or 28.5 degrees. |
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.
quote:
3. precession of Saturns orbit prevents it's appropriate solstice from lining up with pluto's perihelion at all (this will usually be the case AFAIK) |
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.
quote:
4. Saturns tilt on it's orbital axis has precessed such that it fails to point at Pluto. |
Until it precesses back.
quote:
All of the above have to be properly specified for the 'pointing' to occur. Why don't you ever qualify your statement to reflect this? Have you considered checking this out with an orrery? it can be quite enlightening. |
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
quote:
since when? Why would pluto's perihelion and aphelion have any significance? Even in the absence of precession (which is never absent but you claim it is negligable on scales of thousands of years with the outer planets) the planets new aphelion and new perihelion would have nothing to do with the old planet. |
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.
quote:
Just look at the solar orbiting satellites we have launched from earth. None of them have perihelions or aphelions that have any special relation to earth's 'ecliptic'. They were all determined by the arbitrary particulars of the manner of their escape from earths gravity dominance. Some had moon fly bys and some were failed interplanetary probes and others were intended to follow a solar polar orbit or what have you but you can't detect any pattern in any of that via their perihelion/aphelion and the ecliptic of the earth. |
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".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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 bullshit. 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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ger - quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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 bullshit. |
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
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
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
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. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2004 13:27
|