Is Iapetus artificial?

[Karlos]

Quixote wrote:

Iron, well a number of the asteroids in the belt are mostly iron, while others have very little.  is there a better explanation for that?

Show me some large (as in comparable to Ceres, for example), near perfectly spherical iron-nickel asteroids that are more than 99.99% free metal and I'll take the idea of a planetary explosion more seriously. A planet large enough to have a moon the size of mars tidally locked in orbit would likely have a lot of free metal in the inner core that would be molten following such an event.

Large amounts of molten iron would adopt a spherical configuration pretty readily. Also, being the densest (therefore exerting the greatest gravitational field) part of the parent planet, I'd expect it to mop up a lot of the immediate debris too, so they'd be pretty damn large and hard to miss.

I can't think of a single known asteroid that fits the bill. The mass and inertia of such a body would preclude it being thrown in some wildly eccentric orbit never to be seen again.

Mars' orbit is rather tame(r) now, but it's still pretty elliptical.  Remember that over time, the influence of other worlds tends to smooth out a planet's orbit, making it more circular.

Tell that to Mercury and Pluto ;-)

As for two belts, one further in than Mars and one further out, you've missed it a bit:  Mars isn't in its original orbit; collisions with that much debris moving that quickly knocked it out of its orbit into a lower one.  The belt is at the original distance.  The asteroids are the bits that weren't moving quickly enough to shift orbit significantly, except over the eons.

The physics don't add up. The most massive parts of the planet would be near the core; these would be the ones hardest to move and also the ones with the most obvious compositional make up.

Unless of course, the force of the planetary explosion was so vast that it disintegrated it completely into small (no larger than say 100km) fast moving pieces.

Of course, the energy sufficient to do this would also obliterate any satellites. And I don't mean scarring them and ripping away their atmospheres. I mean total obliteration on the same scale as the parent planet.

[Dandy]

Quixote wrote:
The alternative to the existance of money as an institution is for each individual to do everything for himself: grow his own food, weave his own cloth to sew into his own clothes, cobble his own shoes from leather he tanned from the hide of a calf/cow he butchered after raising it himself....

In short, any economic system that divides the categories of labor among the people so that each citizen isn't doing everything requires an accounting system to track how much of the work you did is worth how much of the work I did and so on. Otherwise there could be no coordination of the individual efforts into a cohesive whole.

The medium of currency is unimportant, only the institution of money as an abstract concept.

Another way of looking at it is man-hours. (Or alien-hours, if you will) Greater efficiency produces better results for the same effort. Remember that the laws of physics are the same for everyone, regardless whether another species may understand them better.

Well - you can find loads of examples for alternatives within the SciFi literature...

[Quixote]

;-) Another matter I'd like to address it the notion that the ridge along Iapetus' equator can be dismissed as the resurt of two lesser bodies colliding, and settling into a single moon.  

Since the ridge divides Iapetus exactly in half, it would have been necessary for both lesser bodies to be exactly the same size, which would have been remarkably unlikely.  It also seems that the composition of Iapetus' northern and southern hemispheres is uniform, which would require that the two lesser bodies had been identical in composition as well as size.  Another unlikely coincidence.

Finally, consider two ice skaters zipping towards each other, on a near-collision course.  As they pass, each reaches out, and they clasp hands.  The result is that they spin together about their mutual center of gravity.  Notice how they are positioned side by side, instead of one above the other?  If the ridge girdering Iapetus were the result of two bodies colliding together, the "smush seam," as it were, it would run through Iapetus' poles, instead of exactly ninety degrees from that.

That, and it wouldn't be so even, all along it's length.

[Cymric]

Iceskaters are a poor analogy as the circling is quasi-two dimensional and not fully three-dimensional, and there is another force involved: friction between ice and skates.

In addition, I am sure you have the FEM calculations at your disposal to indicate why the smush seam would not be so even. If you don't, I suggest you ask Sandia Labs to perform simulations akin to these and see what turns up. I am not condemning the end result of such studies in advance; what I am saying is that you are glossing over a lot of important details which are bound to have an influence given the non-linearity of the problem.

[Dandy]

Quixote wrote:
...
Since the ridge divides Iapetus exactly in half,
...

As long as you can't provide exact figures to proove your theorie I would prefer to say: appearently divides Iapetus exactly in half...

Quixote wrote:
it would have been necessary for both lesser bodies to be exactly the same size, which would have been remarkably unlikely.  

Why do you assume it to be "remarkably unlikely"?
It's remarkaby unlikely that your parents found each other to procreate you - and yet it happened - you are the living evidence!
;-)

Quixote wrote:
...the composition of Iapetus' northern and southern hemispheres is uniform,...

The same with earth, moon, ...

Quixote wrote:
...which would require that the two lesser bodies had been identical in composition as well as size.  Another unlikely coincidence.

That doesn' mean anything.
Look at the evolution: It's a whole "chain" of unlikely coincidences...

Quixote wrote:
Finally, consider two ice skaters zipping towards each other, on a near-collision course.  As they pass, each reaches out, and they clasp hands.  The result is that they spin together about their mutual center of gravity.  

No - I wouldn't call it "center of gravity" - it's rather the "centre of centrifugal force" and the centre of the "orbit" they're spinning on...

Quixote wrote:
Notice how they are positioned side by side, instead of one above the other?  

I would say this is depending on your point of view...
If you laid down on your side, it would pretty well look for you as if they were one above the other...

Quixote wrote:
If the ridge girdering Iapetus were the result of two bodies colliding together, the "smush seam," as it were, it would run through Iapetus' poles, ...

If the collision path of these two bodies was vertical to Iapetus' axis, you would be right.
But what if the collision path of these hypothetical two bodies was somehow identical with Iapetus' axis?
Wouldn't then the result be exactly what we see?

Quixote wrote:
instead of exactly ninety degrees from that.

From what our eyes can see, you might be right, but our eyes are not really precise.
What we consider to be exactly ninety degrees, could as well be 89 degrees or 91 degrees.
So - if you use the term "exactly", I would expect precise figures - not just your subjective estimation...

Quixote wrote:
 That, and it wouldn't be so even, all along it's length.

Is it really even, all along it's length?
Or was that just again one of your estimations, based on what your eyes pretend to see?

[Karlos]

OK, ok, I admit it. It is artificial. I made it with an ACME Deathstar Construction Kit, but couldn't be arsed to finish it after cracking open the mold and realising I hadn't sealed it properly, causing some of the ice to bulge out around the join between the two halves.

[whabang]

Screw-up!

[Karlos]

whabang wrote:
Screw-up!

That's why I left it around Saturn; I was hoping nobody would notice...

Frickin' Cassini Huygens :-x

[Dandy]

@Karlos

Karlos wrote:

That's why I left it around Saturn; I was hoping nobody would notice...

 :-o
Hey - I was the first!
 ;-)

Posted on: 2005/2/28 10:42


Dandy wrote:
...

Yes - you got me - I'm the one who left his spaceship in Saturn's orbit once the engine quit.
From there I went hitch-hiking across the galaxis...
Do I now have to await an ticket?
 :-D

But as you are begging me that nicely to pay the ticket for wrong parking on my behalf - then be it!
 :-D  :lol:

[Quixote]

Dandy wrote:

Quixote wrote:
Finally, consider two ice skaters zipping towards each other, on a near-collision course.  As they pass, each reaches out, and they clasp hands.  The result is that they spin together about their mutual center of gravity.  

No - I wouldn't call it "center of gravity" - it's rather the "centre of centrifugal force" and the centre of the "orbit" they're spinning on...

;-) Let's not be pendantic.  It is their shared center of mass, or the center of their shared mass.  That, and the center of gravity are usually so close as to be indistinguishible.  Smushing two bodies together would alter the spin of the two.  The new body would have an axis of rotation that would usually bisect the demarkation where the two joined, or nearly so.

Quixote wrote:
If the ridge girdering Iapetus were the result of two bodies colliding together, the "smush seam," as it were, it would run through Iapetus' poles, ...

If the collision path of these two bodies was vertical to Iapetus' axis, you would be right.
But what if the collision path of these hypothetical two bodies was somehow identical with Iapetus' axis?
Wouldn't then the result be exactly what we see?

:-? You mean both bodies settling together, one moving towards its North, while the other moves towards its South?  Touching pole to pole?  Ooookayyyy...  

Quixote wrote:
instead of exactly ninety degrees from that.

From what our eyes can see, you might be right, but our eyes are not really precise.
What we consider to be exactly ninety degrees, could as well be 89 degrees or 91 degrees.
So - if you use the term "exactly", I would expect precise figures - not just your subjective estimation...

;-) By definition of the term, the equator is exactly ninety degrees from the poles.  And our best data to date has that ridge exactly along Iapetus' equator.

Quixote wrote:
 That, and it wouldn't be so even, all along it's length.

Is it really even, all along it's length?
Or was that just again one of your estimations, based on what your eyes pretend to see?

:-? I'm stunned by the "Eyes pretend to see" remark.  What does it look like to you?


;-) For what it's worth, Mr. Hoagland has added a page five

[Karlos]

For what it's worth, Mr. Hoagland has added a page five

My god, he so needs to get laid or something :lol:

I've never seen such desperation.

[Quixote]

Karlos kibitzed:

For what it's worth, Mr. Hoagland has added a page five

My god, he so needs to get laid or something :lol:

I've never seen such desperation.

:roll: Dude, that's an Ad Hominum Abusive, and you knew it.  If you want to go that route, I can wrestle with the best of them:

8-) Ahem.  "How's about you takes the color crayons out of your nose and listens to the evidence before spouting off like that, junior?  Or maybe you're just not bright enough to understand it?"

:-? See what I mean?  Nothing gets resolved if we do that, so let's don't.

Personally, the evidence I've read on Amiga.org seems to amount to the thought that any data suggesting artificiality can be dismissed on the basis that the human eye tends to see patterns in everything, while any evidence too strong for that can be dismissed on the basis that it must be a hoax, because any genuine relic from that long ago would have deteriorated enough that we could have dismissed it with the argument that the human eye tends to see patterns in everything.

:roll: There's no middle ground there.

Another road block here is that some folk refuse to treat seriously the possibility that Iapetus is artificial unless it is the only remaining hypothesis after all others have been eliminated, no matter how unlikely or far-fetched they are.  (And then we drag in increasingly unlikely alternative hypotheses by the heels, kicking and screaming, fetching them from as far as we can.)

It seems that some have begun with their conclusions, and are seeking data to support them, instead of the other way around.

[Karlos]

@Quixote

Aw come on matey, lighten up. Surely you can tell when I'm having a wee laugh :-)

Seriously, I confess I find the guys leaps of logic flawed.

If you ever watched Red Dwarf, you'll see Rimmer's total obsession with aliens. Anything even slightly strange happens, it's the work of aliens.

This is exactly how Hoagland behaves.

Consider the photographs he touts as proof of Iapetus' geodesic shape.

Every close photograph you see of it shows a perfectly normal limb against space, with the sole exception of the bulge in the middle. Only lighting seems to give any hint of a flat, geodesic structure, yet that flatness is not visible in any close range photographs at all.

Furthermore, this ridge would could not be the seemingly uniform profile we see if the overall shape were geodesic. The height at any point above the 'surface' would vary as you cross the vertices from one plane to another.

[Karlos]

It seems that some have begun with their conclusions, and are seeking data to support them, instead of the other way around.

This is *exactly* what Hoagland does every single time he sees something slightly strange.

[Quixote]

Karlos:

Every close photograph you see of it shows a perfectly normal limb against space, with the sole exception of the bulge in the middle. Only lighting seems to give any hint of a flat, geodesic structure, yet that flatness is not visible in any close range photographs at all.

;-) Just as the roundness of a tree isn't noticed by ants on its surface, so too is the flatness of what remains of each facet is only apparant at a distance; get too close and the local topology is distorted by endless craters left by millions of years of bombardment by meteroites.  


Karlos:

Furthermore, this ridge would could not be the seemingly uniform profile we see if the overall shape were geodesic. The height at any point above the 'surface' would vary as you cross the vertices from one plane to another.

That's assuming that the equatorial ridge was perfeclty circular, which we haven't established.  In fact, in this picture, I notice that it seems not to be quite circular, but more of a decagon.  I also notice other lines that aren't highlighted in the inset to the left.  Can you?  To me it looks like a soccer ball.  (Or football, over there.)




Karlos:

This is *exactly* what Hoagland does every single time he sees something slightly strange.

;-) You know, even as I typed it in, I knew that you were going to say that.

I've been following Hoadland's work for decades, and it is sound.  I understand the material well enough to spot hokum, and believe me, Richard knows his stuff.

Far from starting with his conclusion, Hoagland starts with his model, and when evidence supports his model, he notices it.  When data comes in that contradicts his model, he revises it.  That's just what every other reputable scientist does.

Many (most?) of his detractors can't be bothered to read through his body of work, preferring to dismiss it out of hand.  That's not good journalism, let alone science.

I'll agree that some of the things he does with numbers smack of coincidence, so I usually take that part more lightly, but the rest still stacks up to examination.

[Dandy]

@Quixote

Quixote wrote:
Let's not be pendantic. It is their shared center of mass, or the center of their shared mass. That, and the center of gravity are usually so close as to be indistinguishible. Smushing two bodies together would alter the spin of the two. The new body would have an axis of rotation that would usually bisect the demarkation where the two joined, or nearly so.

I just wanted to point out that "gravity" and
"centrifugal force" are two different things and must not be mixed up, as "gravity" is effective just to the opposit direstion as "centrifugal force".
In your example there is no "gravitational force" aside from the one that keeps your spinning skaters on the ground.
The force trying to disperse your couple is the "centrifugal force" - not "gravity".
In cosmos "gravity" is the couterforce to the "centrifugal force" - in your example "gravity" is replaced by the couple holding each other by the hands.
Sorry - but:
No gravity -> no centre of it!

Quixote wrote:
By definition of the term, the equator is exactly ninety degrees from the poles.

Yes - by definition of the term!

Quixote wrote:
And our best data to date has that ridge exactly along Iapetus' equator.

All hoagland is showing on those pages are pictures.
And from what I can see from those pics the ridge could be exactly ninety degrees from the poles.
But it could as well be 89 or 91 degrees...

As long as no precise measurements/figures can be provided, no serious scientist or engineer would risk his reputation by insisting on the angle between that "equatorial ridge" and the axis through the poles being exactly 90 degrees, just by looking at pictures...

Quixote wrote:
I'm stunned by the "Eyes pretend to see" remark. What does it look like to you?

To me it looks rather rough than even...

BTW:
Hoaxland (or was it Hoagland? :-D) frequently is referring to impacts on Iaphetus.
If Iaphetus really would be hollow, I would expect the impacting bodies to go through Iaphetus (at least those who caused the big craters) - leaving "tunnel-like" holes, where you would be able to see parts of the "inner structure" of an arteficial body.
Iaphetus then would look more like a ball of swiss cheese - rather than like just any moon littered with relativly flat craters!

Ahh - annother BTW:
After having looked long enough at Hoaxlands face (I think this way of spelling the name fits better), I seem to know where his obsession with hexagonal shapes derives from (please, don`t take this more serious than I take Hoagland):

Sorry - I can`t figure out how to upload the pic - the "image" button seems not to work.
As soon as I know how to do it, I will upload the image - promised!