Ringmakers of Saturn PDF - Patrick Crusade

PUZZLEMENTS OF SATURN
variance in ring-plane thickness is a really good example. A preconceived
idea which tacitly has become fixed is that ring thickness
should be a constant, whereupon, variable thicknesses are intolerable.
An impersonal method for dispensing with unwanted measurements
has been to attribute variances plausibly to poor-quality telescopes.
Notwithstanding the tendency to dispose of untoward data, another
part of the answer to the question is that something in or about the data
is being overlooked. Oversight unobtrusively is convenient when fixed
ideas are being promulgated. However, oversight also can occur
because of presumptive expectations that confirmative new findings
will be obtained. Important facts have an uncanny tendency to remain
obscure.
Correct explanations of Saturn's mysteries not only must be
consistent with flyby observations, but also they must agree with the
general thrust of findings by earlier observers. For example, 17th
century observers indicate that Saturn's present annular-ring system
has not always been so configured. On an absolute scale, 17th and 18th
century telescopes admittedly were not sophisticated. However, recorded
differences in ring-system configurations were made with
nearly equally unsophisticated telescopes. Therefore, while minutiae
concerning ring shapes can be questioned, gross differences in form
most likely are valid.
A valid explanation for ring configuration as seen by Voyager flybys
should be capable also of encompassing 17th, 18th and 19th century
observations. When a single causal mechanism explains several events,
the correct explanation almost certainly has been found. Conversely,
when a plurality of mechanisms is required to explain several events,
the correct explanation almost certainly has not been found. In the
former instance, no coincidences are required. In the latter instance,
unlikely coincidences are required. Existence of concurrent happenings,
or a multiplicity of sequential happenings, only can be hypothesized.
Introduction of coincidences into an analysis potentially is
fraught with error.
Though the facts developed herein resemble science-fiction fantasy,
impersonal photographs convey real-life non-fiction. Photographs
and illustrations, coupled with their captions and labels, provide a
skeletal framework of this scientific reference work. Pieces of the
Saturn puzzle are presented in an ordered manner. Consequently, the
reader is urged to proceed as though each chapter is a prerequisite to
the subsequent one.
5