Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.

Originally posted by KSprepared
reply to post by DJW001

 

Thanks, maybe it's not off by 90 degrees, maybe his tele is just inverting it and he's either not aware of it or using it to skew his data.

There's also the matter of field rotation. Field rotation in an alt-az aligned telescope (or poorly polar aligned telescope as was GLP's scope when they did their initial test images of Saturn) can cause saturn to appear to "tilt" dramatically over the course of the night.

To compensate for this, you must astrometrically solve the image and then de-rotate it to its true orientation, with north facing up.

If you know how to work with it, this image and data along with it are actually enough to prove Saturn's not tilted out of whack, though Saturn itself is over-exposed.
flickr.com...
I actually have the video where this came from which actually does show the rings directly.
www.ustream.tv...
Go to 00:58:45. Saturn starts out not-over-exposed and then I crank up the exposure to get the above shot with the stars for astrometric analysis. Once you use the astrometric solution to correct for field rotation it's proof that Saturn's not tilted out of whack, and it's also proof that you can't just casually look at a random picture of saturn from a telescope and claim it means anything with regard to its tilt without first knowing more about the orientation of the image.
i319.photobucket.com...
I took an image from Saturn seconds before it was over-exposed in the above video and layered it beneath an image just after over-exposure, setting a layer mask for the upper end of the histogram so that saturn's true shape and ring orientation shines through the over-exposure. I then layered that image on top of the astrometrically solved image that astrometry.net automatically overlays on top of microsoft WWT (just to establish that I had the astrometrically solved base image oriented correctly and corrected for the telescope's mirroring and wasn't fudging anything). The result? Saturn's rings are horizontal, it isn't tilted out of whack.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

The write up claims not a tilt of 90 degrees, but rather it claims a "tilt away form normal of almost 90 degrees"

That's a very different claim and a false one.

The claim to this is a piece of software. Notice that the image son the right do not show background stars. Thus the Stellarium images and the actual photos are not comparable.

Thankyou for your reasonable argument. I did try to find the original shots on the internet to see if background stars might be more viewable than in the OP. I'm sure they exist or existed but are not there now. I did find

"Cape doctor says he's not leading survivalist group..." in the 'Southeast Missourian'

and found the quote by him at the end of the article "You can't handle the truth." revealing. The changes to Saturn and its' moons described in the OP piece have not been explained nor has there been a cause found for them IMO.

reply to post by KSprepared


This was nonsense when it started the thread at

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It would, though, be helpful if you could tell us who wrote it? I'm wondering if it's linked to the authors of the equally unconvincing 'Kolbrin Bible'.

reply to post by Snippy23


I would also like to know who wrote it, regardless of whether or not the theories make sense to the scientific norm, this would have taken someone a long time to put together.

reply to post by jamie23

Magnetism trumps gravity easily ,

easy way to test , place a ball bearing on the floor , aproach the ball bearing with a magnet and hey presto ..

The "huge" force that is gravity is easily overcome by something as simple as a small magnet .

Better yet, try this experiment: hold a steel ball bearing two meters above the floor. Place a magnet two meters away from where the bearing will land. Drop the bearing. What happens?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by KSprepared

 

The left/right tilt of Saturn depends on the inclination of the ecliptic relative to the observer's position at a given time. It has nothing to do with the actual orientation of the planet in space. More germane to the document in question, it also depends on whether one is using a reflecting or a refracting telescope, as the former will invert the image. The author of the article in question is just that ignorant.

Edit to add: This page should give you some idea of what is going on here.

edit on 27-7-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

was all I needed to see. The author missed such basic concepts of reflecting and refracting that he must have been high when he wrote this.

reply to post by KSprepared


Sigh. Once someone says gravity doesn't exist they're pretty much done for rationally.

If this whole nibiru silliness were true under the electronic universe theory, then if something so small like that can cause Saturn to wobble, then the Sun should have ripped us apart ages ago.

Fact is Gravity does exist. and unless this so-called wabble is proven to be anything more than gravity fro, Titan, then it's really not worth reading the whole thing.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
This is a sham.

I admit I only flicked through the first half of this hypothesis, but the facts were so poorly laid out I had to stop reading to combat an onset of nausea.

For starters the figures given for 'equatorial diameter' and 'mass' are given in a precise form yet the density is unknown. WTF?

Surely, if the author knew so much about the physical attributes, then no doubt that the simple mathematical calculations required to calculate the density should have been a 'walk in the park'.

Secondly, gravity is actually magnetism? OK then, if the author is so sure that gravity is a farce and what we see as attractive masses can only be attributed to magnetism, then why doesn't plastic, non-ferrous ceramic, etc, float?

I could keep going...but what's the point.

Epic fail

edit on 27/7/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

NAh you get it wrong. With planets like saturn, you can only calculate average density[useless]. Although for rock planets, average denisty is fairly accurate, the standard deviation between core/surface density and average density lies between 15-20%. So not much. But with gas giants we have a density gradient vector toward core[as i said it is also in rock planets, but smaller]. "Surface" of gas giants have density lower than any ideal gas in standard conditions for temperature and pressure. It's slightly more dense than vacuum. But as we go deeper, the density arise dramatically. Galileo probe "died" only after passing 200km in jupiter atmosphere. The core of gas giants consist a metallic hydrogen which density can go as far as 10g/cm3, but usually it's "only" 1-3gram/cm3.
It's roughly 1000-2500 densier than air, and it's a hydrogen god dammit. So as we have such wide range of densities, average density will tell us almost nothing.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I did try to find the original shots on the internet to see if background stars might be more viewable than in the OP. I'm sure they exist or existed but are not there now.

If you expose an image fast enough to properly show saturn without over-exposing it, you will not be able to record the stars unless a very bright star is in the same field of view (exceedingly rare, I have yet to see it happen in any of my images of Saturn).

In order to record the stars and properly "register" or astronomically solve the image so that its true orientation can be determined you need a long exposure. If you want to determine the true orientation of the rings, you either need to have a polar aligned telescope and verify your camera's orientation, or you need a short exposure of saturn taken just before you do the long exposure so that you can layer them as I did above.

You can see the video from the night the above exposures were taken here:
www.ustream.tv...
Go to 00:58:45. Saturn starts out not-over-exposed with the ring orientation showing, but then you see me step up the exposure to get a shot with stars for astrometric analysis.

The changes to Saturn and its' moons described in the OP piece have not been explained nor has there been a cause found for them IMO.

It's simple; the author did not understand the effects a telescopes mirrors and lenses have on reversing the image. If a right angle is used instead of going straight into the visual back, as I often do, the image is vertically flipped as well. It all depends on the type of telescope and configuration used. There is also the matter of field rotation, which can make saturn appear to be "tilted" on its side as seen in his pictures.

I know I posted this once already, but it seems to bear repeating, here's about a 2 hour timelapse of Saturn's motion due to field rotation:
www.youtube.com...
In order to compensate for this, or the possibility of this effect being present in any given amateur image of Saturn, as well as the possibility of arbitrary positioning of the camera's orientation within the telescope's visual back or draw tube, you must astrometrically solve the image as done above.

As far as who wrote it, it would have to be one of Cru's circle, maybe astrolpatriot? I am not sure. I picked it up on Scribds chat and thought it was interesting enough to bring here for discussion.

reply to post by KSprepared


If it`s not it`s movement this is a hell of a TURN!!!

I`m not in anyway capable of thinking what would have happened to that planet
Very intriguing, S&F!!!

reply to post by ngchunter


Thankyou ngchunter for your very informative and enlightening post. The reverse image business would certainly explain the 90 degree tilt the author of the OP mentions. The field rotation thing from what I'm getting would only be a problem with longer exposures and since there are no stars visible I'm assuming this didn't come into play. Just as you were able to duplicate the tilt, the original photographer, a Dr. Glen, would have had to use certain settings in order to prove that the tilt related to something not arbitrary and specific to the Stellarium tilt since stars are not available. This information is not available from the tiny photograph in the OP so that is still unknown. The image with the underside of Saturn's rings is not attributed to Dr. Glen one way or the other so that, too, falls outside the scope of verification here.

The changes to Saturn and its' moons that you quote from me referred to the storm on Saturn, the new huge ring around Saturn and the various wierd behaviors of the moons, not just tilt.

Additionally, there was a link supplied to me by another poster 'Saturn Observation Campaign' from JPL which I am still trying to understand. It involves no photographs but just verbage on viewing the tilt of Saturn in 2011. I'm not prepared to argue that yet because I haven't been able to determine if it is a deliberate attempt to confuse or just some basic information I don't know. Anyway, thanks again.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The field rotation thing from what I'm getting would only be a problem with longer exposures and since there are no stars visible I'm assuming this didn't come into play.

Field rotation is always happening, it just takes a long exposure for it to ruin an image. That does not mean it doesn't come into play on shorter exposures like this. The point of my saturn field rotation video is to show how it's constantly happening. At which point in that video does it show saturn's true orientation? The fact is, without me giving you more information, or without solving the image when I do longer exposures at low mag, you have no way of knowing (and in fact, I don't think it's correct at any point in the video, it needs to be solved and rotated to be correct). That's the point I'm trying to make.

The changes to Saturn and its' moons that you quote from me referred to the storm on Saturn,

Yes, well Saturn has historically been stormy, but until Cassini arrived at the planet we had trouble studying its transient storms in any kind of detail from earth. The advent of lucky imaging has also changed the playing field in our favor as well.

the new huge ring around Saturn and the various wierd behaviors of the moons, not just tilt.

I think you're confusing new discoveries with new behaviors. Those things have always been there, we just haven't had a probe orbiting saturn to witness it until fairly recently in astronomy.

reply to post by piotrburz

NAh you get it wrong. With planets like saturn, you can only calculate average density[useless]. Although for rock planets, average denisty is fairly accurate, the standard deviation between core/surface density and average density lies between 15-20%.

The mean density of the Earth is 5.5 g/cm3. Surface material is less than 3.5 g/cm3. The mantle itself has a density between 4.3 and 5.4 g/cm3.

Not sure where you get this SD claim from. The crust density is very different from the mantle/core.

So as we have such wide range of densities, average density will tell us almost nothing.

Maybe you need to learn more about why means are important. Means have important mathematical properties.

reply to post by stereologist
First of all,I am not astronomy savvy all I know to do with a telescope is to look through one end.So with my credentials out of the way my question is,what are the pictures in the pdf of?where did they come from and if they are not pics of Nibiru,tyche,brown dwarf what are they of?Also who is this Dr.Byron Glen?

what the hell is nibiru? Is ia planet? a star? a sun ? a brown dwarf?

where did it came from? is it a part of our solar system?

is it true that it has an orbit around earth every 3600 years?

if it does cause some destruction, it will cause again in the next 3600 years, and again. and again.

i don't get it? hmmm

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The field rotation thing from what I'm getting would only be a problem with longer exposures and since there are no stars visible I'm assuming this didn't come into play.

Field rotation is always happening, it just takes a long exposure for it to ruin an image. That does not mean it doesn't come into play on shorter exposures like this. The point of my saturn field rotation video is to show how it's constantly happening. At which point in that video does it show saturn's true orientation? The fact is, without me giving you more information, or without solving the image when I do longer exposures at low mag, you have no way of knowing (and in fact, I don't think it's correct at any point in the video, it needs to be solved and rotated to be correct). That's the point I'm trying to make.

The changes to Saturn and its' moons that you quote from me referred to the storm on Saturn,

Yes, well Saturn has historically been stormy, but until Cassini arrived at the planet we had trouble studying its transient storms in any kind of detail from earth. The advent of lucky imaging has also changed the playing field in our favor as well.

the new huge ring around Saturn and the various wierd behaviors of the moons, not just tilt.

I think you're confusing new discoveries with new behaviors. Those things have always been there, we just haven't had a probe orbiting saturn to witness it until fairly recently in astronomy.

edit on 28-7-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

Thankyou again for your explanations which I clearly understand having viewed your video again and restudied the pictures of Saturn from Dr. Glen and I can see how they look exactly reversed.

I haven't read any statements saying that this storm on Saturn which circles this large planet is common or recurring and so far it doesn't seem transient. If the huge ring around Saturn has always been there, within our solar system, and never been seen before then I think that makes a good argument for not being able to see things in our own neighborhood unless we're right on top of them. Same with the moons.

As far as Saturns tilt goes, there seems so far in my research to be a 30 or so percent difference in the speed at which it is tilting now compared to 2008 for instance. I'm not finished looking through previous years but April-May-June of this year are troubling. Because of its' 30 or so year orbit and it's display of all tilts every 1/2 that orbit and because it looks like the change in tilt used to average 1 degree or so a month except for oppositions when it was slightly more I have to leave it at I'm still unconvinced that there isn't a change there. Thank you again for your excellent observations.

reply to post by TWILITE22


Often photos are mislabeled.

1. Nibiru is a piece of fiction made up by Sitchin. It doesn't exist.
2. Tyche is a hypothetical object. It never enters the inner solar system. It stays out 50,000AU if I recall properly. That's 50,000 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. That's 1000 times the maximum distance from the Sun to Pluto.
3. Brown dwarfs cannot be anywhere close to the Sun as in within the same distance. Infrared scopes in space would have picked it up in their scans of the sky.

Dr Byron Glen? No idea. Claims he is an amateur astronomer. It's probably a made up name just like the rest of the malarkey.

reply to post by 2Unknown


NIbiru is a fictional planet invented by Sitchin. He assigned the planet properties he claims were in Sumerian tablets. This was not true. It turns out that the properties he assigned the planet are not stable. Sitchin also stated that the planet would not be back for decades.

His fictional planet has been hijacked by others with 2012 claims. They have invented all sorts of new properties such as it being invisible. That is why something large cannot be seen. They think that brown dwarfs can only be seen from the South Pole or with an IR viewing device. Both of these are really dumb claims. Some of the other really dumb claims are:
1. It is a steerable planet
2. It is hiding behind the Sun.
3. It is far away but one of its Moons swings into our solar system

Originally posted by KSprepared
The age of the internet is awakening many people and causing them to do their own research and try to make sense of the given and the hidden facts.

Doing research without the knowledge to do so is like taking a drive without any gas; You can do it all you want, but anything that comes from it will be wrong.