 |
| |
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Lung - quote:
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.
quote:
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. 
quote:
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.
quote:
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 - quote:
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 - quote:
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 - quote:
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 quote:
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
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
|
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Lung -
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. |
Wow, you have an answer for everything!  Unfortunately for you, they're all bad. I notice you don't try and defend my criticisms of Sitchin, though
Anyway, perihelion and aphelion are NOT significant WRT celestial relationships. When a body orbits another body, it does so at perhilion, aphelion and at all other times! It doesn't simply cross its equatorial plane, it follows it. In cases of a direct orbit, the correlation is distinct and obvious.
Do you have any idea how many celestial bodies cross the plane of Saturn? Immeasurable. Even pluto is not unique within our solar system. In fact, all planets and their moons will at times! So what you're pointing to with Pluto is something remotely special about its perihelion, even though Saturn's is not significant? By your own words?!?!?!?!?!
The connection you think is so important is in fact so obtuse, so immaterial and so inaccurate as to be totally meaningless. You cannot compare the correlation of a direct orbit with something that orbits something else entirely. The fact that a planet's equator points two-dimensionally instead of one-dimensionally means that any consequence that you claim is seriously diluted.
quote:
How do you know what objects are unrelated? That requires investigation and you don't investigate coincidences. |
A moon follows its planet everywhere, like a bad smell. Pluto on rare occasions sees Saturn's rings side on, only to continue on its merry way around the Sun. There is no comparison.
quote:
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. |
Pluto's perihelion is not significant either. It's not a point where it reaches for sentimental reasons to remind it of Saturn. It is no consequence and is totally meaningless.
quote:
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...
|
So what? It still exists, and the vast margin of error allows Saturn to point to a lot more places, making the probability far higher, and thus your numerology far less amazing. After all, winning the lottery is no great fluke if you bet on half of all possible combinations of numbers, is it.
quote:
Odin -
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... |
Wrong. They followed where they come from and sought more concrete evidence to back up any hypotheses.
quote:
UR -
So make a model, I've done the hard work of spotting the "coincidences". |
No you didn't, Sitchin did, and its a very low coincidence, and he hasn't found any evidence, only numerology.
quote:
Ger -
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. |
They point to lots of places, as i've shown all along.
quote:
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.
Lul - say something relevant and I'll respond. |
Stop wondering and go out and find evidence. Look where wondering has got us without facts. Technology owes everything to facts. Without it it wouldn't work, and therefore it wouldn't be technological. After all, what's a CD that doesn't work? A coaster, a frisbee, but certainly not anything that can store data.
Mate, if you're off with the fairies, please show us the fairies, or we retain the right to disbelieve their existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Ger -
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.
|
It's not evidence at all unless you can determine a range of odds of it being able at certain points of time of 'pointing' at one particular point (perihelion) of pluto's orbit. The odds of any given planet doing that should be quite high. If everything is left to chance we would expect a Saturn that occasionally points to Pluto whether Pluto is a former satellite or not. Look at the possible range of tilt angles that would allow to do it with just a modest inclination towards the ecliptic of 2.49 degrees! With that particular inclination a planet could have any tilt between 21.5 and 28.5 degrees and still occasionally 'point' at Pluto's perihelion.
There is an additional problem suppose Saturn did not point at pluto. We could not say that it was never in a position to do so because we don't believe that the currently observed tilts and inclinations of the planets have been constant throughout their history. certainly nobody suggests that Uranus formed with a tilt of 98 degrees!
What all this means is that (just as i mentioned in my previous post) we would not expect to see any orbital artifact in Pluto or Saturns orbit if Pluto were an escaped satellite of Saturn! The point of the thread seemed to be that you thought you were providing evidence that Pluto was a moon of Saturn which is consistant with sitchin's interpretation of sumerian mythology. However, if your observation is perfectly consistant with expectations in the absence of Pluto ever having been a moon of Saturn (ie, we would still expect all things being random for Saturn to have a healthy chance of occasionally 'pointing' to pluto's perihelion) then what really have you demonstrated? nothing!
It would also be nice to see a reference that indicates that if an objects equator ever points at any other objects perihelion at any time then this constitutes evidence that the other object is a former moon of the first object. I have never read any such crazy thing but I'm willing to give you a chance to provide a reference. It has seemed thus far as if you believe that the fact that one way to look for new unknown current satellites in current orbits around known objects is to look along their ecliptic means somehow that we can identify previous satellites by finding objects which can on occasion pass through the former objects ecliptic at the supposed former moons perihelion. This is not the case at all. That interpretation doesn't follow from that methodology for finding current stallites currently orbiting on the ecliptic and I'd like you to explain how it does. Furthermore it would be nice if you could explain why perihelion matters since that has nothing to do with the known technique of finding current satellites.
Last edited by Geronimo on 17-12-2004 at 05:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ger - quote:
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. |
My specifications? You made your first calculation using Saturn's perihelion even insisting I told you to use that number. I pointed out the flaw and I did give you credit, I even thanked you for making the calculations. 
John - quote:
Again... I'm not too sure what Berzerker is trying to prove, much less argue, here. |
I'm trying to lead y'all down a road of inquiry but the kicking and screaming is almost insufferable
quote:
... that the ancients aren't as dumb as we thought they were? |
Hardly a focus of the ongoing debates, so did you randomly pick out a sentence from a post to reach that conclusion?
quote:
... that by using mathematical ratios one can determine the early history of the solar system? |
As one line of evidence, mathematical ratios are how astronomers found the asteroids and the last pair of gas giants.
quote:
... That Saturn and Pluto are somehow related? |
You've read this thread and don't know this is what the main debate is about?
quote:
(If so, why does that matter, and, if so, why bring non-modern "evidence" into the issue)? |
Separate lines of evidence, if we have ancient sources of information about "creation" that are scientifically viable and we have modern sources, we can resolve more unknowns by using both. Of course, that raises more questions - why would an ancient source be scientifically viable? Especially a source those ancient peoples say came from God.
What is the point you're trying to make, that Saturn's rings don't point to Pluto?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ger - quote:
It's not evidence at all unless you can determine a range of odds of it being able at certain points of time of 'pointing' at one particular point (perihelion) of pluto's orbit. The odds of any given planet doing that should be quite high. If everything is left to chance we would expect a Saturn that occasionally points to Pluto whether Pluto is a former satellite or not. Look at the possible range of tilt angles that would allow to do it with just a modest inclination towards the ecliptic of 2.49 degrees! With that particular inclination a planet could have any tilt between 21.5 and 28.5 degrees and still occasionally 'point' at Pluto's perihelion. |
Odds? The odds are 100%, Saturn's rings point to Pluto.
If Pluto came from Saturn we might expect such an alignment. But we see the alignment and your argument seems to be that because Saturn had to be at one particular point in it's orbit to align with Pluto, that reduces the "odds" Saturn is the source. That's a bizarre argument... It's not about odds, its about the fact Saturn points to Pluto. That puts Saturn into a select group of candidates for the origin of Pluto.
quote:
There is an additional problem suppose Saturn did not point at pluto. We could not say that it was never in a position to do so because we don't believe that the currently observed tilts and inclinations of the planets have been constant throughout their history. certainly nobody suggests that Uranus formed with a tilt of 98 degrees! |
This is true, that's why Uranus may not be Pluto's host planet after all. So I'll repeat a question(s) that has gone unanswered: if the (proto) Earth was struck by a Mars sized object as astronomers believe, where was the Earth at the time of the collision? Did the Earth survive the collision without any changes in it's orbit? Is there any evidence in the solar system of such a collision? Yes, the asteroid belt.
quote:
What all this means is that (just as i mentioned in my previous post) we would not expect to see any orbital artifact in Pluto or Saturns orbit if Pluto were an escaped satellite of Saturn! |
And yet we do see a possible artifact, a very good one.
quote:
The point of the thread seemed to be that you thought you were providing evidence that Pluto was a moon of Saturn which is consistant with sitchin's interpretation of sumerian mythology. However, if your observation is perfectly consistant with expectations in the absence of Pluto ever having been a moon of Saturn (ie, we would still expect all things being random for Saturn to have a healthy chance of occasionally 'pointing' to pluto's perihelion) then what really have you demonstrated? nothing! |
Your expectations are not shared by many astronomers, the outer gas giants and asteroids were found using the same "expectation" I used to link Pluto with Saturn. Their expectation was that other celestial bodies will likely be found along the ecliptic so that's where they kept looking. I merely looked at Saturn's ecliptic/equator to see if Pluto was in line.
quote:
It would also be nice to see a reference that indicates that if an objects equator ever points at any other objects perihelion at any time then this constitutes evidence that the other object is a former moon of the first object. I have never read any such crazy thing but I'm willing to give you a chance to provide a reference. |
Its one piece of evidence. Astronomers used that very technique to find all sorts of objects in the solar system.
quote:
It has seemed thus far as if you believe that the fact that one way to look for new unknown current satellites in current orbits around known objects is to look along their ecliptic means somehow that we can identify previous satellites by finding objects which can on occasion pass through the former objects ecliptic at the supposed former moons perihelion. This is not the case at all. That interpretation doesn't follow from that methodology for finding current stallites currently orbiting on the ecliptic and I'd like you to explain how it does. |
Astronomers concluded that Mars' 2 moons were captured asteroids. Why? They found their orbits too unusual to have formed in a Mars' system combined with their resemblance to the asteroids. They were captured from elsewhere...somewhere on the ecliptic...
How do you explain that if astronomers ignore stuff like that?
quote:
Furthermore it would be nice if you could explain why perihelion matters since that has nothing to do with the known technique of finding current satellites. |
Because if Pluto was ejected from an inner planet into a larger highly elliptical orbit, the point Pluto stopped heading away from the sun and began it's new orbit might be very close to its perihelion. Add to that the 2:1 ratio of Pluto's orbit minus Saturn and we have to ask why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
As one line of evidence, mathematical ratios are how astronomers found the asteroids and the last pair of gas giants.
|
Not so. Bodes law only applies to Ceres, other asteroids up to the modern era were found by observation, that law was only applied after certain planets were discovered. Uranus and Neptune were discovered after the observable effects on the preceding planet (i.e. Uranus' orbit discovered after consideration of Saturn etc).
quote:
You've read this thread and don't know this is what the main debate is about?
|
Well what is your evidence for it may I ask? That the orbital inclinations of the rings and Pluto are incidentally similar? See my last past.
quote:
Odds? The odds are 100%, Saturn's rings point to Pluto.
If Pluto came from Saturn we might expect such an alignment. But we see the alignment and your argument seems to be that because Saturn had to be at one particular point in it's orbit to align with Pluto, that reduces the "odds" Saturn is the source. That's a bizarre argument... It's not about odds, its about the fact Saturn points to Pluto. That puts Saturn into a select group of candidates for the origin of Pluto.
|
No, it's a theory. An interesting one I'll give you that but just a theory. NEVER describe your theory as fact unless you have indisputable, verifiable and concrete evidence, and even then understand the definition of scientific fact as non-absolute. Otherwise scientifically speaking you negate the right to be taken seriously.
I just don't get how you have been able to go from Saturn to Pluto, then call it fact, the most likely origin, based on circumstances that are incidental and subject to change with time anyway! 
quote:
This is true, that's why Uranus may not be Pluto's host planet after all. So I'll repeat a question(s) that has gone unanswered: if the (proto) Earth was struck by a Mars sized object as astronomers believe, where was the Earth at the time of the collision? Did the Earth survive the collision without any changes in it's orbit? Is there any evidence in the solar system of such a collision? Yes, the asteroid belt.
|
Ummm, the Asteroid belt contains too much material to be a result of that collision, though I think it's very arguable that it's the result of other collisions, which by accretion theory is very likely. The big-splash theory has two likely outcomes at the point of impact. That the Earth would be destroyed and an unstable asteroid field created, or the creation of the Moon.
quote:
And yet we do see a possible artifact, a very good one.
|
?
quote:
Your expectations are not shared by many astronomers, the outer gas giants and asteroids were found using the same "expectation" I used to link Pluto with Saturn.
|
No they weren't! They were found by observation and induced effects!
quote:
Astronomers concluded that Mars' 2 moons were captured asteroids. Why? They found their orbits too unusual to have formed in a Mars' system combined with their resemblance to the asteroids. They were captured from elsewhere...somewhere on the ecliptic...
How do you explain that if astronomers ignore stuff like that?
|
Mars =| Pluto =| Saturn
So Saturn perturbed Pluto into it's highly eccentric orbit? Firstly an eccentric orbit that takes it close enough to Saturn to be perturbed would have been perturbed by Jupiter LONG beforehand, secondly, it's far more likely that any such body would have been affected at aphelion, whereby the Sun can slingshot it into a higher orbit, possibly by collision which I doubt, or perturbation by Venus (Earth being too far out imo, Mercury possible but my gut tells me it's too small, unless it was bigger back in the day). That's a theory proposed for the Kuiper belt, or at least some of the bodies present there. Comets perturbed by Jupiter on the inward turn of their orbits is also highly possible, though that would contribute more to outer Kuiper and Oort cloud objects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Lung - quote:
Wow, you have an answer for everything! Unfortunately for you, they're all bad. I notice you don't try and defend my criticisms of Sitchin, though |
Agreeing with him on one thing doesn't oblige me to agree with him on everything. But what was "your criticism" of Sitchin? I haven't seen anyone tear down his theory about the solar system and I already have enough knowledge about your ability to criticise effectively to doubt your conclusions.
quote:
Anyway, perihelion and aphelion are NOT significant WRT celestial relationships. |
How would you know?
quote:
When a body orbits another body, it does so at perhilion, aphelion and at all other times! It doesn't simply cross its equatorial plane, it follows it. In cases of a direct orbit, the correlation is distinct and obvious. |
And Pluto is found crossing Saturn's equatorial plane at perihelion.
quote:
Do you have any idea how many celestial bodies cross the plane of Saturn? Immeasurable. Even pluto is not unique within our solar system. In fact, all planets and their moons will at times! So what you're pointing to with Pluto is something remotely special about its perihelion, even though Saturn's is not significant? By your own words?!?!?!?!?! |
Oh geez, I'm not having this debate again. And I said Saturn's perihelion is insignificant, Pluto's is significant.
quote:
A moon follows its planet everywhere, like a bad smell. Pluto on rare occasions sees Saturn's rings side on, only to continue on its merry way around the Sun. There is no comparison. |
You didn't answer my question.
quote:
Pluto's perihelion is not significant either |
Why?
I was correcting another of your mistakes, that's "so what".
quote:
It still exists, and the vast margin of error allows Saturn to point to a lot more places, making the probability far higher, and thus your numerology far less amazing. After all, winning the lottery is no great fluke if you bet on half of all possible combinations of numbers, is it. |
There is no margin of error, Saturn's rings point to Pluto. It's that simple. Lung, make an actual argument next time.
quote:
No you didn't, Sitchin did, and its a very low coincidence, and he hasn't found any evidence, only numerology. |
No he didn't, I did. He merely argued that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn based on Babylonian religious texts. Based on that assertion I analyzed the Saturn/Pluto connection with actual measurements.
quote:
They point to lots of places, as i've shown all along. |
A gun barrel can point to lots of places, but if we want to find the bullet, the one point that counts is the one when the gun goes off. We look for the bullet in that direction...
quote:
Stop wondering and go out and find evidence. |
@ the king of unsupported assertions.
quote:
Look where wondering has got us without facts. Technology owes everything to facts. Without it it wouldn't work, and therefore it wouldn't be technological. After all, what's a CD that doesn't work? A coaster, a frisbee, but certainly not anything that can store data.
Mate, if you're off with the fairies, please show us the fairies, or we retain the right to disbelieve their existence. |
Lung, the only arguments I've seen you make were already made by others. Otherwise, your posts contain no substance - just insults, snide comments about how smart you are and how dumb I am, and generalities about how science works and how it doesn't. You're a waste of time, go away or "debate" someone else...
Last edited by Berzerker on 17-12-2004 at 15:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Whaleboy - quote:
Not so. Bodes law only applies to Ceres, other asteroids up to the modern era were found by observation, that law was only applied after certain planets were discovered. Uranus and Neptune were discovered after the observable effects on the preceding planet (i.e. Uranus' orbit discovered after consideration of Saturn etc). |
I didn't say ratios were the only means. Of course they used telescopes! The ratio argument began with Bodes Law and that law preceded the discovery of Uranus and the asteroids. The law was used to predict planets at the asteroid belt and Uranus/Neptune and that spawned a renewed search objects, that's
what I meant.
quote:
No, it's a theory. An interesting one I'll give you that but just a theory. NEVER describe your theory as fact unless you have indisputable, verifiable and concrete evidence, and even then understand the definition of scientific fact as non-absolute. Otherwise scientifically speaking you negate the right to be taken seriously.
I just don't get how you have been able to go from Saturn to Pluto, then call it fact, the most likely origin, based on circumstances that are incidental and subject to change with time anyway! |
Look very closely at what I called a "fact" and prove it wrong.
quote:
Well what is your evidence for it may I ask? That the orbital inclinations of the rings and Pluto are incidentally similar? See my last past. |
You just quoted me telling someone else who allegedly doesn't know something about this thread to go and read it. GO AND READ IT.
quote:
Ummm, the Asteroid belt contains too much material to be a result of that collision, though I think it's very arguable that it's the result of other collisions, which by accretion theory is very likely. The big-splash theory has two likely outcomes at the point of impact. That the Earth would be destroyed and an unstable asteroid field created, or the creation of the Moon. |
Ahem...my first question? Earth's orbit?
quote:
No they weren't! They were found by observation and induced effects! |
You mean astronomers didn't know to look along the ecliptic for planets first? We are identifying different means of discovery, what is your problem? I have enough to deal with in this thread without getting into all these ridiculous pissing contests.
quote:
Mars =| Pluto =| Saturn
So Saturn perturbed Pluto into it's highly eccentric orbit? |
No, Pluto was ejected from an equatorial orbit around Saturn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I didn't say ratios were the only means. Of course they used telescopes! The ratio argument began with Bodes Law and that law preceded the discovery of Uranus and the asteroids. The law was used to predict planets at the asteroid belt and Uranus/Neptune and that spawned a renewed search objects, that's
what I meant.
|
It's plainly erroneous I'm sorry to say. Herschel discovered Uranus without reference to Bodes law, indeed it is at Uranus and Neptune that the law breaks down, although of course there is a harmonic relationship between the orbits it wasn't confirmed until Pluto's mean orbit was known.
You'll also note that Bodes law cannot have been used to predict Neptune, let alone Pluto, the difference in AU formerly is close to 10, Bodes Law takes the form of a=0.4+0.3*K, (K=0,1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128 - each power of two is of course representative of the respective planet). The original form was a = (n+4)/10 where n = 0,3,6,12,24,48 etc. So it falls apart right where your argument most needs it, in both incarnations.
quote:
Look very closely at what I called a "fact" and prove it wrong.
|
That Saturn points to Pluto? The burden of proof is on you of course in this matter to prove it as a fact.
quote:
You just quoted me telling someone else who allegedly doesn't know something about this thread to go and read it. GO AND READ IT.
|
No, you were making a point and I was asking you for specific evidence as to your main claim. The thread thus far has been unsatisfactory so I want you to present it in a clearer manner.
quote:
Ahem...my first question? Earth's orbit?
|
It's more likely that the body smashed into the Earth (for the sake of argument what we'll call the larger body), while going in towards the Sun, obviously moved towards but it's angular momentum would have increased, resulting in a mean orbital radius similar to the original. That the Earth is in it's current orbit and not part of Jupiter is indicative of the direction of the mars-sized body.
quote:
You mean astronomers didn't know to look along the ecliptic for planets first?
|
Don't twist what I'm saying, the plane of the ecliptic is not a ratio. I trust you are familiar with the traditional method of planet observation/discovery (comparative observation)?
quote:
I have enough to deal with in this thread without getting into all these ridiculous pissing contests.
|
I must admit this is turning into a gang rape, possibly due to your inferior argument.
quote:
No, Pluto was ejected from an equatorial orbit around Saturn.
|
From the sublime to the ridiculous . Pray tell how and where is your evidence, direct evidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
...there's Sedna:
quote:
Planet-Like Body Discovered at Fringes of Our Solar System
03.15.04
What's bigger than an asteroid, smaller than a planet, red all over and far, far away? The answer -- a mysterious planet-like body orbiting our Sun -- has been discovered by NASA-funded researchers led by an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
Image above: These three panels show the first detection of the faint distant object dubbed "Sedna." Imaged on November 14th from 6:32 to 9:38 Universal Time, Sedna was identified by the slight shift in position noted in these three pictures taken at different times. Image courtesy: NASA/Caltech.
The object is three times farther away from Earth than Pluto, making it the most distant known in the solar system.
"The Sun appears so small from that distance that you could completely block it out with the head of a pin," said Dr. Mike Brown, Caltech associate professor of planetary astronomy and leader of the research team. The object, unofficially named "Sedna," is 13 billion kilometers (8 billion miles) away from Earth.
This is likely the first detection of the long-hypothesized "Oort cloud," a faraway repository of small icy bodies that supplies the comets that streak by Earth.
Image right: An artist's concept of the newly discovered planet-like object, dubbed "Sedna." The Sun appears as an extremely bright star instead of a large, warm disc observed from Earth. In the distance is a hypothetical small moon, which scientists believe may be orbiting this distant body. Image courtesy: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Other notable features of Sedna include its size and reddish color; it is the second reddest object in the solar system, after Mars. At an estimated size of three-fourths the size of Pluto, it is likely the largest object found in the solar system since Pluto was discovered in 1930.
Brown, along with Drs. Chad Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii and David Rabinowitz of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., found the "planetoid" on November 14, 2003, using the 48-inch Samuel Oschin Telescope at Caltech's Palomar Observatory near San Diego. Within days, the object was observed by telescopes in Chile, Spain, Arizona and Hawaii, and soon after, NASA's new Spitzer Space Telescope looked for it.
Sedna lies extremely far from the Sun, in the coldest known region of our solar system, where the temperature never rises above minus 240 degrees Celsius (minus 400 Fahrenheit).
The planetoid is usually even colder, because it approaches the Sun this closely only briefly during its 10,500 year orbit around the Sun. At its most distant, "Sedna" is 130 billion kilometers (84 billion miles) from the Sun. That is 900 times Earth's distance from the Sun.
Scientists used the fact that even the Spitzer telescope was unable to detect the heat of the extremely distant, cold object to determine that it must be no more than 1,700 kilometers (about 1,000 miles) in diameter, smaller than Pluto. By combining all available data, Brown estimates the size at about halfway between that of Pluto and Quaoar, the planetoid discovered by the same team in 2002. Until "Sedna" was detected, Quaoar was the largest known body beyond Pluto.
Image left: The artist's rendition shows "Sedna" in relation to other bodies in the solar system, including Earth and its Moon; Pluto; and Quaoar, a planetoid beyond Pluto that was until now the largest known object beyond Pluto. Image courtesy: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
The extremely elliptical orbit of Sedna is unlike anything previously seen by astronomers; however, it resembles that of objects predicted to lie in the hypothetical Oort cloud. The cloud is thought to explain the existence of certain comets. It is believed to surround the Sun and extend outward halfway to the star closest to the Sun. But Sedna is 10 times closer than the predicted distance of the Oort cloud. Brown says this "inner Oort cloud" may have been formed by gravity from a rogue star near the Sun in the solar system's early days.
Brown explained, "The star would have been close enough to be brighter than the full Moon, and it would have been visible in the daytime sky for 20,000 years." Worse, it would have dislodged comets farther out in the Oort cloud, leading to an intense comet shower that could have wiped out any life that existed on Earth at the time.
Rabinowitz says there is indirect evidence that "Sedna" may have a moon. The researchers hope to check this possibility with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.
Trujillo has begun to examine the object's surface with one of the world's largest optical/infrared telescopes, the 8-meter (26-foot) Frederick C. Gillett Gemini Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. He said, "We still don't understand what is on the surface of this body. It is nothing like what we would have predicted or what we can currently explain.
"Sedna" will become closer and brighter over the next 72 years before it begins its 10,500-year trip to the far reaches of the solar system and back again. "The last time "Sedna" was this close to the Sun, Earth was just coming out of the last ice age; the next time it comes back, the world might again be a completely different place," said Brown.
More information and images are available at http://spitzer.caltech.edu. Caltech owns and operates the Palomar Observatory. The Spitzer Space Telescope is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. JPL is a division of Caltech.
|
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe..._like_body.html
Since this article was posted nine months ago, a new theory has been developed, that Sedna was not merely disturbed into a closer orbit by a passing star, but was, in fact, captured from a passing star system.
So...there's yet another possible source for Pluto. 
Oh...one more pic:
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2004 04:35
|