Saturn Articles

Re: saturn retrograde

Laura said:
Speaking of Saturn:

http://spaceweather.com/

SATURN'S RINGS SURGE IN BRIGHTNESS: This Friday night, May 22nd, Saturn will be "at opposition"--that is, opposite the sun in the skies of Earth. The ringed planet rises in the east at sunset and soars through the southern sky at midnight, a golden "star" in the constellation Scorpius.

Whenever Saturn is at opposition, its rings surge in brightness. Why? Scroll down for the explanation.


And what a dumb explanation they come up with:

The brightening of Saturn's rings is called the "opposition effect." Saturn's rings are made of frozen chunks ranging in size from dust to houses. Sunlight directly backscattered from those ice particles causes the ring system to shine even more than usual for a few days around opposition. The exact mechanism involves shadow-hiding and possibly coherent backscattering.

Not a clue that such a line up facilitates electrical current flow through the system.

Which makes one wonder if there will be any effects of this on Earth?

Nop, is not mentioned, as the brightly spots on Ceres,

_http://www.space.com/29469-ceres-bright-spots-nasa-vote.html said:
The puzzling white spots on the surface of the dwarf planet Ceres are definitely reflecting sunlight, scientists said, but the cause of the marks remains a mystery.

The newest batch of images from the Dawn spacecraft, which began orbiting Ceres on March 6, was released May 15. The data gleaned from these images has increased Dawn scientists' confidence ??? that the white spots are caused by reflected sunlight, and that idea can help them narrow down the possible candidates for the spots' contents.

I suppose they narrowed the possible candidates for the spots' contents after reviewing the voting they launched at the public.

With the release of these new images, NASA has asked the public to submit a guess for what is creating the spots: volcanos, geysers, rocks, ice, salt deposits, or "other." As of this writing, 37 percent of people who took NASA's poll for what the white spots might be said "other." Alien colonies, perhaps? About 30 percent of voters picked ice, with 10 percent opting for volcanoes. Geysers ranked next with 9 percent, followed by salt deposits (8 percent) and rock (6 percent)

And yes, later they confirmed it

"Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of these spots is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface — possibly ice," Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission, said in a statement from NASA.

I have been reading the ECHCC book along with a book about storms in space that do talks about the electric universe, certainly they are persistent in not talking about the electrical current flow.

edit quotes and verb tense

Added: images taken from here: _http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/206387-dawn-captures-ceres-mysterious-bright-spots-in-closest-yet-photo
 

Attachments

  • Ceres-640x353.jpg
    Ceres-640x353.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 259
  • Ceres-Mars-crater-ice-two-views-640x228.jpg
    Ceres-Mars-crater-ice-two-views-640x228.jpg
    37.1 KB · Views: 258
Nice photos.
It's probably good to remind ourselves that the 'ice' does not necessarily have to consist of H2O.
Many molecules can solidify and possess a reflective quality. CO2 for starters.
If it gets cold enough maybe Nitrogen even.
These substances can act in a similar way to water, even forming geysers.
 
MusicMan said:
Nice photos.
It's probably good to remind ourselves that the 'ice' does not necessarily have to consist of H2O.
Many molecules can solidify and possess a reflective quality. CO2 for starters.
If it gets cold enough maybe Nitrogen even.
These substances can act in a similar way to water, even forming geysers.

That's good to know/remember, because, I did not registered/considered, that at the article was implicit those variables.

Thanks MusicMan.
 
https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/geophysical-fluid-dynamics/publications/52652 said:
A laboratory model of Saturn's North Polar Hexagon

AC Barbosa Aguiar, PL Read, RD Wordsworth, T Salter, Y Hiro Yamazaki

A hexagonal structure has been observed at ∼76°N on Saturn since the 1980s (Godfrey, D.A. [1988]. Icarus 76, 335-356). Recent images by Cassini (Baines, K., Momary, T., Roos-Serote, M., Atreya, S., Brown, R., Buratti, B., Clark, R., Nicholson, P. [2007]. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9, 02109; Baines, K., Momary, T., Fletcher, L., Kim, J., Showman, A., Atreya, S., Brown, R., Buratti, B., Clark, R., Nicholson, P. [2009]. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 11, 3375) have shown that the feature is still visible and largely unchanged. Its long lifespan and geometry has puzzled the planetary physics community for many years and its origin remains unclear. The measured rotation rate of the hexagon may be very close to that of the interior of the planet (Godfrey, D.A. [1990]. Science 247, 1206-1208; Caldwell, J., Hua, X., Turgeon, B., Westphal, J.A., Barnet, C.D. [1993]. Science 206, 326-329; Sánchez-Lavega, A., Lecacheux, J., Colas, F., Laques, P. [1993]. Science 260, 329-332), leading to earlier interpretations of the pattern as a stationary planetary wave, continuously forced by a nearby vortex (Allison, M., Godfrey, D.A., Beebe, R.F. [1990]. Science 247, 1061-1063). Here we present an alternative explanation, based on an analysis of both spacecraft observations of Saturn and observations from laboratory experiments where the instability of quasi-geostrophic barotropic (vertically uniform) jets and shear layers is studied. We also present results from a barotropic linear instability analysis of the saturnian zonal wind profile, which are consistent with the presence of the hexagon in the North Pole and absence of its counter-part in the South Pole. We propose that Saturn's long-lived polygonal structures correspond to wavemodes caused by the nonlinear equilibration of barotropically unstable zonal jets. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This movie of Saturn's north pole was taken by Cassini's VIMS spectrometer at a mid-infrared wavelength of 5 microns. It was winter at Saturn's north pole; all illumination is thermal radiation (heat) welling up from Saturn's depths:

saturn_vims_north-pole_hexagon_animation_PIA09187.gif


Here is the lab experiment:


https://youtu.be/n_c9A9Auf0A


https://youtu.be/VQzLY17ncWM

More information about this experiment here: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2471.html
 
Laura said:
Speaking of Saturn:


And what a dumb explanation they come up with:

The brightening of Saturn's rings is called the "opposition effect." Saturn's rings are made of frozen chunks ranging in size from dust to houses. Sunlight directly backscattered from those ice particles causes the ring system to shine even more than usual for a few days around opposition. The exact mechanism involves shadow-hiding and possibly coherent backscattering.

Not a clue that such a line up facilitates electrical current flow through the system.

Which makes one wonder if there will be any effects of this on Earth?

In his most recent hourly broadcast, Jim McCanney says that much of the recent extremely heavy storm activity was caused by this line-up between the Earth, our Moon and Saturn, and it also has something to do with the 'return current' of protons from the Solar wind which area we begin to pass through right about this time of the year. He states this is the reason why the hurricane season also begins at this time, because of the increased current flow returned from the outer regions of the solar system.
 
I had the same question about the Mercury Retrograde (I think we're in one at the moment?) I heard people talking about it recently so I did a little reading in the 2 minutes spare time I had today.

What are the affects (if any) that you guys know of?

I read that it can poorly affect communication skills? Though I don't really have a great understanding of astronomy.

Any insight would be great!

I think I'm just looking for something to blame for my poor communication skills =P
 
And now, aurora on Mars are visible to the naked eye:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,38538.0.html
 
Richard S said:
In his most recent hourly broadcast, Jim McCanney says that much of the recent extremely heavy storm activity was caused by this line-up between the Earth, our Moon and Saturn, and it also has something to do with the 'return current' of protons from the Solar wind which area we begin to pass through right about this time of the year. He states this is the reason why the hurricane season also begins at this time, because of the increased current flow returned from the outer regions of the solar system.

I was thinking about this in the New scare date: 28 May 2015 thread, i mean the possible consequenses to our planet after such plaanetary line-up in our Solar System.
Anyway it seems that Big changes are ocurring in our Solar System and fast, recently we witnessed some interesting changes on planets like Saturn, Mars, Ceres(the dwarf planet)...
 
As I'm into the history of the solar system, of course I came across Velikovsky's work and also watched David Talbott's intriguing documentary about Saturn having been the sun of the earth once. Looks fascinating but also weird when we look at the fact that even in times of the Roman Empire there were hints on Saturn as a sun in the sky.

I Pt 2 of her "Secret History of the World" (The Horns of Moses) Laura comes up with a different interpretation, claiming that Saturn et al. where comets at that time. Not planets!

Did anyone investigate that any further so far? I guess this is a very interesting claim and from my perspective much more likely than Talbott's as it also fulfills the law of Occam's Razor.

When I googled Laura's claim, I didn't find anything supporting her claim though, but loads of websites supporting Talbott's story, most likely without any verification. That's why I'm asking if anyone has more sources/links on her claim that those were names of comets "fighting" in the sky being seen as angry "gods".
 
Alexander Gottwald said:
As I'm into the history of the solar system, of course I came across Velikovsky's work and also watched David Talbott's intriguing documentary about Saturn having been the sun of the earth once. Looks fascinating but also weird when we look at the fact that even in times of the Roman Empire there were hints on Saturn as a sun in the sky.

I Pt 2 of her "Secret History of the World" (The Horns of Moses) Laura comes up with a different interpretation, claiming that Saturn et al. where comets at that time. Not planets!

Not exactly like that, but that when the giant comet of Clube and Napier and Bailey would appear in those "gates" that is what the ancients called it. I was not suggesting that the planets we know as Saturn, Jupiter, etc, were comets. Though I still reserve judgment about Venus.

Alexander Gottwald said:
Did anyone investigate that any further so far? I guess this is a very interesting claim and from my perspective much more likely than Talbott's as it also fulfills the law of Occam's Razor.

When I googled Laura's claim, I didn't find anything supporting her claim though, but loads of websites supporting Talbott's story, most likely without any verification. That's why I'm asking if anyone has more sources/links on her claim that those were names of comets "fighting" in the sky being seen as angry "gods".

Check the footnotes in the book and search out the books and papers of Clube, Napier, Bailey etc.
 
I was not suggesting that the planets we know as Saturn, Jupiter, etc, were comets.
I guess, that was a misunderstandig. Didn't mean to suggest that either. Just that people in ancient times seem to have projected their ideas of angry gods on the comets they saw.

As I finished reading the 3 books from the "Secret History of the World" series today, I will now check all the stuff I highlighted while reading and will of course lokk for those sources you mentioned!

I still reserve judgment about Venus.

There are many things unclear. And I still wouldn't completely dismiss Talbott's idea. Not just because of Venus. Also everything about dinosaurs isn't possible with the gravity of today. So how did that change so massively? There were beasts that weighed up to 30 tons on land. Today we have 5 tons (the elephant). I can't imagine by now, how that might have caused only by comets.

Some say there once was more than one moon. I guess you mentioned that somewhere as well in the context of Tihuanacu? Maybe that changed gravity as well?

Great work anyway! And not only on that topic! I'm not easily impressed, but this needs to get acknowledged! :)
 
Alexander Gottwald said:
I was not suggesting that the planets we know as Saturn, Jupiter, etc, were comets.
I guess, that was a misunderstandig. Didn't mean to suggest that either. Just that people in ancient times seem to have projected their ideas of angry gods on the comets they saw.

As I finished reading the 3 books from the "Secret History of the World" series today, I will now check all the stuff I highlighted while reading and will of course lokk for those sources you mentioned!

I still reserve judgment about Venus.

There are many things unclear. And I still wouldn't completely dismiss Talbott's idea. Not just because of Venus. Also everything about dinosaurs isn't possible with the gravity of today. So how did that change so massively? There were beasts that weighed up to 30 tons on land. Today we have 5 tons (the elephant). I can't imagine by now, how that might have caused only by comets.

Some say there once was more than one moon. I guess you mentioned that somewhere as well in the context of Tihuanacu? Maybe that changed gravity as well?

Great work anyway! And not only on that topic! I'm not easily impressed, but this needs to get acknowledged! :)

I don't dismiss Talbot, I think he's right about a lot of things.

And I agree about the gravity issue vis a vis dinosaurs. A lot of things must have been very different. And things were also very different before the events that brought down Rome. Just read the ancient chronicles and histories. There are many very weird weather/environment notices scattered through there that raise the eyebrows.

Yes, the second moon issue was very interesting stuff. Wish I could find more on that.
 
Laura said:
[...]

Yes, the second moon issue was very interesting stuff. Wish I could find more on that.

I recently started to read Gurdjieffs "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" and one of the things that surprised me, since I never really heard about it, before, was his mentioning of a second moon of earth.

Here is a short summary about it (although I'm not sure how accurate the interpretation from that person is):

Anulios, the Second Moon of the Earth: What Gurdjieff Writes about „the Moon That Never Allow You to Sleep in Peace“

In the first volume of his trilogy, „All and Everything“, George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff claims the existence of the second Moon of the Earth, called Anulios. He claimed that Anulios was his first name, at the beginnings of our planet, but then, in the last period of existence of Atlantis, this second Moon received another name – Kimespai, which meant „ never allowing one to sleep in peace“.

According to Beelzebub’s teachings, when our solar system was till young, a large comet named Kondor intersected Earth’s orbit to closely and a collision ensued. The result of this violent collision was that two fragments of Earth break off: the Moon as we all know it and the second Moon, Anulios.

Here are the pages where Gurdjieff speaks about Anulios:
„The larger of these two fragments was named «Loonderperzo» and the smaller «Anulios»; and the ordinary three-brained beings who arose and were formed on the Earth knew them by these names. But the beings of later times gave them different names at different periods, and more recently the larger fragment has come to be called «Moon», but the name of the smaller one was gradually forgotten. As for the beings there now, not only have they no name at all for this smaller fragment, but they do not even suspect its existence.

It is interesting to note that the beings of a continent on that planet called «Atlantis», which later disappeared, still knew of this second fragment of their planet and also called it «Anulios». But the beings of the last period of existence of that continent, in whose general presences there were already crystallized the results of the consequences of the properties of the organ called «kundabuffer»—about which, it now seems, I shall have to explain to you even in great detail— called it «Kimespai», which meant «never allowing one to sleep in peace».

The contemporary three-brained beings of this peculiar planet do not know about this former fragment, chiefly because its comparatively small size and its remoteness make it quite invisible to them, and also because no «grandmother» ever told them that once upon a time any such little ‘satellite’ of their planet had been known.

And if one of them should by chance catch sight of it through that excellent yet childish toy of theirs called a ‘telescope,’ he would pay no attention to it, simply mistaking it for a big «aerolite».

Contemporary beings will probably never see it again, since it has become proper to their nature to see only unreality.

Let us give them their due, during recent centuries they have indeed most «artistically» mechanized themselves to see nothing real“.

The apparition of the two fragments, the Moon and Anulios, is also the cause for the disaster of Atlantis, as Beelzebub describes in another chapter, as you can see below: „The second catastrophe to the planet Earth,’ continued His Conformity, ‘was due to the following circumstances:

«When, during the first disaster, two large fragments were detached from this planet, the «center of gravity» of its entire presence had no time to shift to a corresponding new position. As a result, right up to the time of the second catastrophe, this planet existed with its «center of gravity» out of place, thanks to which ifs movement during that whole period was not uniformly harmonious and there often occurred, both within and upon it, various upheavals and displacements And it was just when the «center of gravity» finally shifted to the true center of the planet that the second catastrophe occurred.

But from now on, added His Conformity with a shade of self-satisfaction, ‘the existence of this planet will be quite normal from the point of view of common-cosmic harmony. This second cataclysm has finally put our minds completely at rest, and has convinced us that a catastrophe on a cosmic scale can never again occur on account of the planet Earth. ‘Not only has this planet once more acquired a normal movement in the general cosmic equilibrium, but its two detached fragments, now called «Moon» and «Anulios», have also acquired a normal movement and have become independent, though small, «kofenshars», that is, additional planets, of the solar system Ors».“

The above is just a sample of what Gurdjieff told via his tales about this second moon.

Then I was reminded about the recent discovery of a "second moon" of earth from NASA:

_http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/06/30/confirmed-nasa-just-discovered-earth-has-a-second-moon/
_https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6537
_http://www.sciencealert.com/earth-might-actually-have-a-second-moon

From the above quote from G's Tales it seems that this other moon could have been (or maybe still is) comparatively small and had a remote orbit.

Apparently the idea that the earth had (or still has) a second moon isn't such a far fetched idea:

_http://earthsky.org/space/does-earth-have-a-second-moon
_https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/25/ask-ethan-does-earth-really-have-a-second-moon/#6912590032c6

Then there is this wikipedia entry about claimed moons of the earth, which only seems to be a small sample of the theoris about it:

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claimed_moons_of_Earth

From the looks of it, it is quite probable (if not likely) that the earth had (and maybe still has) other moons. It is also interesting that Gurdjieff talked about the idea that a collision (or close approach) of a comet named "Kondor" was the reason why our moon and the other one was created, out of the fragments from this collision with earth. Also that idea gained more ground, when scientists announced the likelihood of exactly such a scenario:

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis#History

Very interesting stuff, no doubt. Also interesting that Gurdjeff talks about the fact that before certain catalysms, it was known that this second moon existed. In the above wikipdia entry, are several theories mentioned that might be worthwhile to read, although Wikipedia dismisses them. Since Wikipedia is in the habit to dismiss a lot of things, inncluding sound and good research, I wouldn't trust that assessment.

Maybe that could be a good start.
 
From the wiki page Claimed moons of earth:

In 2011, planetary scientists Erik Asphaug and Martin Jutzi proposed a model in which a second moon would have existed 4.5 billion years ago, and later impacted the Moon, as a part of the accretion process in the formation of the Moon

They reference Nature (August 4, 2011): https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10289.html doi:10.1038/nature10289

Nature also published a news item about this (August 3, 2011): http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110803/full/news.2011.456.html

Early Earth may have had two moons

Collision with lost second satellite would explain Moon's asymmetry.

Richard Lovett

Earth once had two moons, which merged in a slow-motion collision that took several hours to complete, researchers propose in Nature today.

Both satellites would have formed from debris that was ejected when a Mars-size protoplanet smacked into Earth late in its formation period. Whereas traditional theory states that the infant Moon rapidly swept up any rivals or gravitationally ejected them into interstellar space, the new theory suggests that one body survived, parked in a gravitationally stable point in the Earth–Moon system.

Several such 'Lagrangian' points exist, but the two most stable are in the Moon's orbit, 60° in front or 60° behind.

Traces of this 'other' moon linger in a mysterious dichotomy between the Moon's visible side and its remote farside, says Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who co-authored the study with Martin Jutzi, now of the University of Berne1.

The Moon's visible side is dominated by low-lying lava plains, whereas its farside is composed of highlands. But the contrast is more than skin deep. The crust on the farside is 50 kilometres thicker than that on the nearside. The nearside is also richer in potassium (K), rare-earth elements (REE) and phosphorus (P) — components collectively known as KREEP. Crust-forming models show that these would have been concentrated in the last remnants of subsurface magma to crystallize as the Moon cooled.

What this suggests, Asphaug says, is that something 'squished' the late-solidifying KREEP layer to one side of the Moon, well after the rest of the crust had solidified. An impact, he believes, is the most likely explanation.

"By definition, a big collision occurs only on one side," he says, "and unless it globally melts the planet, it creates an asymmetry."

Asphaug and Jutzi have created a computer model showing that the Moon's current state can be explained by a collision with a sister moon about one-thirtieth the Moon's mass, or around 1,000 kilometres in diameter.

Such a moon could have survived in a Lagrangian point long enough for its upper crust and that of the Moon to solidify, even as the Moon's deeper KREEP layer remained liquid.

Meanwhile, tidal forces from Earth would have been causing both moons to migrate outward. When they reached about one-third of the Moon's present distance (a process that would take tens of millions of years), the Sun's gravity would have become a player in their orbital dynamics.

"The Lagrange points become unstable and anything trapped there is adrift," Asphaug says. Soon after, the two moons collided. But because they were in the same orbit, the collision was at a relatively low speed.

"It's not a typical cratering event, where you fire a 'bullet' and excavate a crater much larger than the bullet," Asphaug says. "Here, you make a crater only about one-fifth the volume of the impactor, and the impactor just kind of splats into the cavity."

Like a pancake

In the hours after the impact, gravity would have crushed the impactor to a relatively thin layer, pasted on top of the Moon's existing crust. "You end up with a pancake," Asphaug says. The impact would have pushed the still-liquid KREEP layer to the Moon's opposite side.

Apshaug's theory isn't the only attempt to explain the lunar dichotomy. Others have invoked tidal effects from Earth's gravity, or convective forces from cooling rocks in the Moon's mantle.

"The fact that the nearside of the Moon looks so different to the farside has been a puzzle since the dawn of the space age," says Francis Nimmo, one of the authors of a 2010 paper in Science proposing tidal forces as the cause2.

But despite his competing model, Nimmo (a colleague of Asphaug's at Santa Cruz, but not an author of the new study) calls the new theory "elegant".

And Peter Schultz of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, calls it "interesting" and "provocative", despite his own theory involving a high-angle collision at the Moon's south pole, which he believes would have pressed crustal material northward to form the farside highlands3.

"All this is great fun and tells us that there are very fundamental questions that remain about the Moon," he says.

NASA's upcoming GRAIL mission, designed to probe the Moon's interior using precise measurements of its gravity, may help figure out what happened billions of years ago. "But in the end," Schultz says, "new lunar samples may be necessary."

References:

1. Jutzi, M. & Asphaug, E. Nature 476, 69-72 (2011).
2. Garrick-Bethell, I., Nimmo, F. & Wieczorek, M. A. Science 330, 949-951 (2010).
3. Schultz, P. H. & Crawford, D. A. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 477, 141-159 (2011)

Additional source, same story: http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20110803/earths-two-moons-its-not-lunacy-but-new-theory

EDIT: correction of lay-out in quote
 
Back
Top Bottom