Zathras say, “A shame to ruin the symmetry of the pretty rings….

Zathra say, “Don’t drive the Star Fury through the rings…”

“No one listens to Zathras.”

Since you dinged me on “posigrade”, let’s say I didn’t know the correct term, and as is often the case in web searches, my first guess was this, there were lots of hits, I didn’t have time to fully digest and also didn’t quickly find corrective references to the preferred scientific term “prograde”, IE like retroactive/proactive. Thanks for clarifying this.

So the original title of this piece is puzzling, “fist of an angry god”. Saturn is the namesake of one of those lesser gods, true, and as a god of war, likely to be angry. Be careful what you will find searching on this term, if you’re trying to find a link back to this blog….

Why such great surprise at the event pictured? To the extent of “wth”? As with posigrade, I can find any number of posts that suggest events like this should be fairly commonplace, give what’s generally understood about the moons and the rings. It might be interesting to know the continuing track of the object, and whether mass was permanently extracted from the rings. Not worth major tax dollars, though, to investigate.

Mr. Ivan, you are looking for an argument when you bring up plagiarism. I myself have often thought, just about every time I reread Genesis 1, which is the inspired Word, with the benefit of my adult eduaction and experience, that many modern scientists have in fact plagiarized much of the body and theory of their science directly out of the Good Book, and deliberately omitted crediting their source. Many of these scientists seem to espouse a spirituality that originates somewhere near Babylon, that you mention it, which brings along this very specific flavor of intolerance and also the self-righteous willingness to steal just about anything that isn’t nailed.

Once more lightly over evolution. In a web search on “Genesis 1″, I found convergent links to a site hosting multiple Bible versions of questionable integrity, and as well a link to the prominent Christian scientist’s view on the Big Bang, and other links to his views on Evolution and Biblical Literalism in general. I am now waiting for my copy of his book which I expect to be most enlightening reading.

Evolution is the pure mechanist’s view of things. Mechanism fails at any given order of infinity, the center of the universe, the end of the universe, the beginning or end of time. So why accept that framework? The Mechanist debunk of mechanical evolution, then, is that it fails at the origin of life, there is no logical beginning.

BTW, if evolution is a willful adaption, why are orthodontists making big bucks in a growth industry fixing what should be a fully-evolved self-adjusting mechanism?

The spiritualist view is more profound, evolution fails at the origin of the soul. What is the essence of the soul, how did it “evolve” and what mechanism provides for it’s bondedness into our bodies? I am 50/50 on whether you will claim you have one, Mr. Ivan.

Also, the inclination angle (about 30º) is too steep to be something orbiting Saturn. Objects orbit in the equatorial plane.

This is a meteor that smashed through the rings at high speed. Note that it gets deflected when it hits a large ring particle. Exit angle is about 45º).

There are more relevant details in this photo which you didn’t notice, and they all indicate an extra-Saturnian impactor. See them in my annotated copy of the photo:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=150103974&blogId=508851085

My thinking is that solar systems in general are composite systems, they may have been formed out of common material originally, but then captivity can also happen, the most interesting case having caught publicity recently, the “retrograde orbit” kind of object. Its’ [sic] captor star should “accrete” [sic] it fairly rapidly, one would think.

I presume that you are referring to the recent discovery of WASP-17b, an exoplanet with a retrograde orbit around the star WASP-17. The most likely theories for this are a gravitational slingshot resulting from a near-collision with another planet, or the intervention of a smaller planet-like body working to gradually change WASP-17b’s orbit by tilting it via the Kozai mechanism.

The Bible says there will be signs in the heavenlies.

Did you mean heaven lies? In which case, you are right!

And also the literal Genesis strongly indicates that plant life was created on this planet BEFORE the solar system we percieve [sic] was assembled. Check it and see.

Are you serious?! The Bible was written by desert goat herders who plagiarized the creation story from the Babylonians.

As regards Genesis 1 and Big Bang, again, I am not alone in developing viewpoints, do check out: [URL omitted].

Again, that is just one of a multitude of creation myths from around the world; the Hindu creation myth correlates the most with the Big Bang and Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I have always asked, if one does not believe, why invoke or insult or actually express hatred?

That is only in response to Evangelical fundamentalists who want to force their brand of religion down the throats of “heathens”, and also because of general religious intolerance towards those who don’t share their beliefs. I have no problem with religious people who keep their beliefs to themselves.

The main thing about the Rings is, why so shallow, only 1 Km deep? I have been trying to track down some simple facts, like Saturns’ [sic] orbit and rotation are posigrade*, but what about the Rings? Are they posigrade*, too, maybe the Saturnian equivalent of geostationary? I recently got a hunch that they are mostly formed out of a retrograde captive or several that broke up, and as the particles got suitably small, some kind of electrogravitic** action groomed them as they are.

*The correct word is prograde. Saturn’s rings orbit in a prograde direction with the planet’s rotation.

**That pseudo-science word is something that an “Electric Universe” nutter would use.

***The explanation for the thinness of Saturn’s rings is that particles closer to the primary more quickly than particles farther away, in accordance to Kepler’s third law, and the varying orbital speed of the material eventually causes it to form a ring. Collisions between particles, over a period of time, eventually force the them in line along the equatorial plane of Saturn into individual ringlets. The particles, as a result of a mechanism based on the synchronization phenomenon due to the epicycle rotational phases of particles in the ring, under certain conditions, become synchronized with the phase of an external satellite; e.g., with the phase of Mimas in the case of the outer B ring edge. This synchronization eliminates collisions between particles and suppress the diffusion induced by collisions to a great extent. This synchronization theory also gives the sharpness of the ring edges in few tens of metres that is in agreement with available observations.

I don’t doubt that many Chestnut scientific theories, as they re-engineer themselves, will come in greater concordance with the true literal interpretation of God’s Word as that finally becomes “unsealed” as The Boook [sic] itself says is happening.

I refer you to my comment about “desert goat herders” and “creation myths” above.

Hey, I read a book a ways back about how 80 PCT of human DNA is “Junk”.

According to Wikipedia, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified. The term was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno, but is, as of 2008, somewhat outdated, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications. For some sequences once classified as junk DNA, functions have been found, and others are subject to ongoing research. About 95% of the human genome has once been designated as “junk”, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some junk DNA may function in ways that are not currently understood. Moreover, the conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function. Some consider the “junk” label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it appropriate as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term “noncoding DNA” (although junk DNA often includes transposons that encode proteins with no clear value to their host genome). About 80% of the bases in the human genome may be transcribed, but transcription does not necessarily imply function.

[H]ow did sex evolve? I can’t picture it, myself, it’s one of those mysteries that could NOT have just happened, not in a quadrillion.

I’ll refer you to this article in Science Daily: Parasites May Have Had Role In Evolution Of Sex.

Where are the LIVING transitional forms? What defines transitional?

Look in the mirror and all around you; all life forms are currently in transitional stages — evolution does not stop.

So what if Nessie is actually a living Transitional? Seeing would be believing in that case. Maybe there is an ancient ice cave down there somewhere?

It has been speculated that the Loch Ness Monster is (supposedly) an extinct plesiosaur, a long-necked aquatic reptile that went extinct during the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. However, the following argument have been made against it:

* Plesiosaurs were probably cold-blooded reptiles requiring warm tropical waters, while the average temperature of Loch Ness is only about 5.5 °C (42 °F). Even if the plesiosaurs were warm-blooded, they would require a food supply beyond that of Loch Ness to maintain the level of activity necessary for warm-blooded animals.

* In October 2006, the New Scientist headlined an article “Why the Loch Ness Monster is no plesiosaur” because Leslie Noè of the Sedgwick Museum in Cambridge reported, “The osteology of the neck makes it absolutely certain that the plesiosaur could not lift its head up swan-like out of the water”. However, this does not rule out the reports where a head and neck was not seen.

* The loch is only about 10,000 years old, dating to the end of the last ice age. Prior to that date, the loch was frozen solid for about 20,000 years.

* If creatures similar to plesiosaurs lived in the waters of the Loch Ness, they would be seen very frequently as they would have to surface several times a day to breathe.

* There is insufficient fish in the Loch to sustain a family of such creatures.

***Source: Synchronization mechanism of sharp edges in rings of Saturn.

Several things to go over. All through the thread, we have the commonplace that no one will revere or fear, but many reflexively take in vain. That’s as regards god or God, hell or Hell, in many of these quotations. I have always asked, if one does not believe, why invoke or insult or actually express hatred ?

Thanks for calling me a creationist with a lower “c”, that’s pretty apropos from your viewpoint. Actually I would say I am closer to Creationist, but with an extremely open mind. Speaking of Chestnuts, that word is definitely one, as was the version of Accretion theory, and Evolotion for that matter, that was taught in the timeframe I hark from. Cut me slack, I’m a ’53 and worth less than some guitars of that time. Major Chestnuts were low-hanging fruit then, and most have been heavily re-engineered since then.

You cite Wiki, I read that when I can, but sometimes the window sticks to the wallpaper and heads straight into a Black Hole, ouch. I have looked around, and many discoveries since ’53 pretty much match up with or build from some of my perceptions, I am not the only one thinking the thoughts and most are scientists. If I get a chance I will pull some quotes.

As regards Genesis 1 and Big Bang, again, I am not alone in developing viewpoints, do check out:

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/creationvsevolution/2009/08/does-genesis-1-1-describe-the-big-bang-06/index.html

If I ever get my synthesis of the translations together, I will post it somewhere, my view is already more detailed than in the article linked, I haven’t checked out the book reference.

The main thing about the Rings is, why so shallow, only 1 Km deep? I have been trying to track down some simple facts, like Saturns’ orbit and rotation are posigrade, but what about the Rings? Are they posigrade, too, maybe the Saturnian equivalent of geostationary? I recently got a hunch that they are mostly formed out of a retrograde captive or several that broke up, and as the particles got suitably small, some kind of electrogravitic action groomed them as they are.

Tying together most of astrophysics and the particle realm as well, I part with quite a bit of Chestnut Creationism because it appears to imply that God’s created Natural Laws were not constant, but God himself is the essence of Constancy. We may not have all manifestations of those laws in proximity to observe empirically, that’s where it gets dicey when we try to second guess all parts of the puzzle. I don’t doubt that many Chestnut scientific theories, as they re-engineer themselves, will come in greater concordance with the true literal interpretation of God’s Word as that finally becomes “unsealed” as The Boook itself says is happening.

The whole thing about Evolution is so problematic. Read a piece today by one of the great Geneticists and in 5 pages he covered how we already know all there is to know and BTW a species can evolve into another without actually defining what defines a species, where the boundary lies, and how it gets crossed, very dissapointing. Hey, I read a book a ways back about how 80 PCT of human DNA is “Junk”. These guys want to TAKE OVER EVOLUTION? I need a lawyer, what kind of contract covers that? They gonna work on me? Where’s the consent form? This paragraph stinks but you get the drift.

BTW in the literal, God “cloned” woman from man. Sends a strong message on the wisdom of us doing it. Also poses the question: how did sex evolve? I can’t picture it, myself, it’s one of those mysteries that could NOT have just happened, not in a quadrillion.

To close on Evolution, I think if all the translations were properly synthesized, we’d know the exact story on the degree to which we were created “static” and “dynamic”. Where are the LIVING transitional forms? What defines transitional? Here’s an irony for you, somewhere (on this blog?) I saw a post about some Chestnut Creationist yammering that Nessie proves the “Literal Creation”, I don’t recall how. So what if Nessie is actually a living Transitional? Seeing would be believing in that case. Maybe there is an ancient ice cave down there somewhere?

Where do I sign-up?

Man, I’ve got to stop listening to Eminem tunes, and I need a coffee break!

IVAN3MAN: thanks for your excellent and enjoyable post.

You’re welcome, I’m glad that you liked it; that’s not the usual response that I, or anyone else for that matter, get here from creationist/ID proponents when a counter-argument is made against their assertions. In fact, I had not expected you to return, because usually such comments are of the ‘hit-and-run’ type by creationists who parrot the usual “evilution” propaganda.

The “leap of un-faith” in scientifc [sic] areas will always fascinate me. As for example Darwinism which suggests that since evolution is the principal stuff that happens, we should see numerous transitional forms all around us, and a long and complicated fossil record of them, but we don’t.

Nonsense! It’s that favourite old chestnut of creationists again! ( ) You can find a list of transitional fossils here.

Can we say that the astronomical record to-date shows many ongoing such processes, with planets and solar systems readily discovered in various intermediate stages?

Indeed there is! Behold…

* List of Stars With Known Protoplanetary Disks.

* List of Notable Extrasolar Planets.

* Fomalhaut b: First Exoplanet Observed Optically.

* Full List of Known Extrasolar Planets.

Was there a big bang? If so, how did that degrade into so many fundamentally circular processes?

There is a full list of frequently asked questions and answers here: Evidence for the Big Bang.

The irony of the Rings is that if the E-Ring really is composed of cryovolcanic plumes, then that might be the closest available set of proximate condition to the protoplanetary ones, and yet it’s stated that they are NOT accreting.

There is nothing ironic about it the E-Ring; unlike the other rings of Saturn, it is a diffuse disk consisting mostly of ice, with silicates, carbon dioxide and ammonia emminating from the cryovolcanic south polar region of the moon Enceladus. While a majority of the particles fall back to the surface, some of them escape Enceladus’ gravity — 0.111 m/s² — and enter orbit around Saturn, since Enceladus’ escape velocity is only 866 km/h. However, numerous mathematical models show that such a ring is unstable, with a lifespan between 10 000 and 1 000 000 years. Therefore, particles composing it must be constantly replenished. Enceladus is orbiting inside this ring, in a place where it is narrowest, but present in its highest density. So, if the cryovolcanoes of the moon Enceladus were to cease, then the E-Ring would eventually ‘condense’ back onto the moon due to its rather weak gravitational pull.

I’ll address your other comments later…

Either that or an improbably positioned hot dog balanced on a plate.

The angle of the bright part of the object leads me to believe that.

Have an amazing day!

Micheal

UFO’s are BSO’s