Is Iapetus artificial?

[falemagn]

I did.
Seriously.
Found only vague hints of you calling yourself 'open minded' towards other explanations, but until then you call this hoagland theory a fact.

Then you don't know how to read. Moreover, you're implicitely saying I'm so stupid as of claiming I did something it would be so easy to verify I haven't.

I give you one last chance before plastering the link to the message I'm referring to all around your face :-)

[falemagn]

Err, artificial means exactly that, unnatural :-)

No, it does not. Something appearing "unnatural" does not imply artificial. Specifically, I use the term "artificial" as "intelligently designed/constructed".

Karlos, I may have even understood what you mean by unnatural, but believe it or not, artificial and unnatural are synonims.

You belov make the example of a crystal, and say that it to you looks 'unnatural'. Heck, that's the thing that most looks natural to me! It's the very essence of the way nature speaks: chaos, fractals. Crystals, like trees, like mountains, like clouds, are nothing but an 'implentation' of a formula describing some subsets of a chaotic space.

in fact, as I've said in one of my previous messages, the only natural thing this thing comes close to is a giant carbonic crystal!

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

This is one of the worst arguments ever. Things are not always what they seem in the absence of sufficient information.

I haven't said it proves anything. I just said that if it quacks like a duck, walks like duck, and does everything else like a duck, then it is a duck. I haven't said Iapetus actually does everything as a 'duck', so to speak. It does however at least look like one, which is an indication that it could be one.

I don't dismiss the possibility, you do.

In short, all we know is that it has some of the familiar attributes of a Duck. So does a man masquerading in a duck outfit blowing a hunters duck-caller...

Strawman again... can you find the place where I said it does?

Sorry, but why would you discount its unusual, unnatural (by your own words) appearance?

I am testing the assertation that 'do we have any evidence aside from the appearence, that it is artificial' ?

It's totally irrelevant, 'cause I'm not trying to prove it's artificial, on the other hand you are trying to disprove it is. And you can only do it if you go there and drill. Or if you can prove it's natural. You can't do either as of now, so you have to accept both possibilities.

The appearance is the only thing we can check for now, and that clearly leans torwards artificiality, as you yourself said (ok, you said unnatural, but they're synonims).

I said, "at best" it could be described as unnatural looking.

We can check its surface composition, mass etc (as inferred from its gravity), density, none of which are out of the ordinary for an ice moon.

None of which rule out the possibility it's artificial either.

Mind you, possibility.

[Karlos]

@Falemagn

Karlos, I may have even understood what you mean by unnatural, but believe it or not, artificial and unnatural are synonims.

Perhaps the individual words are, but the remark "appears unnatural" and "is artificial" are not.

It's totally irrelevant, 'cause I'm not trying to prove it's artificial, on the other hand you are trying to disprove it is.

Completely wrong there, I'm afraid - you are doing the strawman thing now ;-)

Can you point me to anywhere where I outright dismiss the idea that it possibly could be artificial?

My entire argument is as follows:

I don't believe the total available evidence to date supports the idea that it is of artificial origin.

How does that dismiss the possibility that it is?

[falemagn]

Perhaps the individual words are, but the remark "appears unnatural" and "is artificial" are not.

Very true. Who said they are? I haven't.

On the other hand, "appears unnatural" and "appears artificial" mean the same thing, because unnatural == artificial and, obviously, appears == appears :-)

Completely wrong there, I'm afraid - you are doing the strawman thing now

Can you point me to anywhere where I outright dismiss the idea that it possibly could be artificial?

Then what are we discussing about here? If you allow for the possibility it may be artificial, just as I do, I fear we're wasting our time here.

On the other hand, I feel that you're quite opposing to the idea that it may be artificial, at least by reading what you've written. Or am I mistaken?

My entire argument is as follows:

I don't believe the total available evidence to date supports the idea that it is of artificial origin.

I don't either, and I don't recall having ever implied it.

Thus, must I deduce your whole argument was a strawman attack? :-D

How does that dismiss the possibility that it is?

It doesn't, but then again, why are you arguing with me, if you agree with me?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

falemagn wrote:

I did.
Seriously.
Found only vague hints of you calling yourself 'open minded' towards other explanations, but until then you call this hoagland theory a fact.

Then you don't know how to read. Moreover, you're implicitely saying I'm so stupid as of claiming I did something it would be so easy to verify I haven't.

I give you one last chance before plastering the link to the message I'm referring to all around your face :-)

Leave it. I'm tired of your attitude.

[falemagn]

One mistery is naturally solved, it appears :-)



This doesn't quite explain nested hexagonal craters, however.

I'm less and less inclined to believe that thing is artificial, but you never know... ;-)

[falemagn]

Leave it. I'm tired of your attitude.

So am I of yours. Have a nice day :-)

[PMC]

blobrana wrote:
(that gave the A C Clarke 2001 story line of the `eye of Iapetus` and the monolith at its centre.)

One of my favorite books.

A simpler explanation than an advanced civilisation painting one side of the moon black.

Presumably the result of having consumed far too much Romulan Ale?  Those crazy, wacky aliens :-D

[PMC]

falemagn wrote:

I don't recall having said that. However, it being artificial is a possible explanation and there's no reason to discard it as unfounded unless you can come right now with an alternative, natural explanation that can be proven.

I hadn't discarded that explaination, but in my humble experience the wildest hypothesis generally turn out to have a far more mundane explaination.  I refuse to allow my emotion override my curiosity.

An example of a naturally occurring hexidecimal shape can be found inside any Amythist bearing geode stone, no-one would suggest that is anything other than naturally occurring?

But you do notice the huge difference in magnitude, don't you?

My point was that it's entirely possible for such structures to exist in nature.  I make no bold speculations as to their origin, I was merely pointing out the above observation

The only thing that I can think of is a huge crystal, perhaps a carbon one. A diamond, that is. Might it be a piece of the core of a... dead star somehow entrapped by the gravitational force of Saturn in an orbit around it? This would be coherent with the evidence that the black part is made of organic material, it would be coherent with the somewhat singular orbit around saturn, both for shape and inclination, and it would be coherent with the geodesic shape.

A simple test as described in Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer is to take a large bowl of flour and drop a marble into it.  You'll note that a circular crater forms.  Throw the marble from an oblique angle and unless the marble rolls along the surface, the resulting crater will also be round.  Throw in a non-sperical object and the crater will still be round.  

I suppose the above debunks my own skepticism, but tectonic activity can throw up some pretty strange features.  

Clarke too hypothesises that the interior of a large gas giant may well contain enough carbon under sufficient pressure and temperature to produce one pretty mean diamond...  However, if Iapetus is indeed the impact site of such a substantial piece of carbon lodged in the surface then the body would "wobble" about it's rotation like a drunk swinging an axe?

[Karlos]

@Falemagn,

(me)At best, I can say objectively that some of the features appear unnatural.

(you)Err, artificial means exactly that, unnatural

Why did you feel the need to make this point if you were not inferring that "appear unnatural" impies "artificial"?

On the other hand, I feel that you're quite opposing to the idea that it may be artificial, at least by reading what you've written. Or am I mistaken?

To be clear about it, I'm not opposed to the idea that the item may be artificial.

I'm just not of the opinion, based on the available evidence, that it is artificial. If sufficient evidence to the contrary is produced, that opinion would change, but it is my considered view that currently, there is insufficent evidence to support the notion that it is artificial in origin.

Furthermore, I don't really feel the need to explore such possibilities until there is sufficient evidence to support the idea or that there is sufficient evidence against any more obvious explanation.

It doesn't, but then again, why are you arguing with me, if you agree with me?

Who said I am arguing with you? An argument implies a difference of opinion.

I am simply stating my opinion, at each instance of this, we have quibbled over semantics regarding the phrasing and logic in the respective language used.

This doesn't mean your opinion of the moon's nature is different to mine, rather we just implicitly like to nit-pick each other's points ;-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Karlos wrote:
To be clear about it, I'm not opposed to the idea that the item may be artificial.

Me neither...
BUT.. this very wild hypothesis brought agressively with very vague suggestions... I've seen that hocuspocus before :roll:
Thing that irritates me the most is the labelling of ppl criticizing this wild (and unproven) stuff as being close minded, or even comparing them to the ancient catholic church wich condemned the observations of Copernicus or Galilei :pissed:

[Cass]

There is an obvious connection:


As for the arguments, some interesting readings here. :-D


________
Avandia Settlements

[blobrana]

:lol:



"That's no moon..." - Kenobi  

[Wain]

Quick question...


When did "If you can't offer a better alternative than the solution offered by a man known to be consistently fraudulent, misleading, and obsessed with manipulating data to satiate his own ego than you obviously have no case for dismissing his claims..."

become a logically valid response to the people who keep
saying "I don't know why it is the way it is, but there are mountains of things to be analyzed and discussed before we even dare go so far as to propose a theory that suggests something as radical as the haughty, ill-educated conspiracy theorist of the astrophysics world has proposed."



You're trolling...go away.

[DethKnight]

 I dont care if it's a natural phenomenon or an artificial construct, what distrbs me is the part where
apparently, according to hoagland, nobody can confirm nor deny radar scanning of object.
 I once worked for the us gov't , and not confirming or denying leads me to infer "plausible deniability" which makes me nervous.
 (pls someone help me find something to debunk this issue)

[blobrana]

Hum,
The good old Arecibo Observatory comes to the rescue...

"We’re being scanned"