Is Iapetus artificial?

[Karlos]

@Falemagn

It's a jumptable you dufus!

Oops, wrong thread ;-)

[Karlos]

How much chocolate would you need to make a walnut whip out of that beast?

[Karlos]

I've never seen enough examples of this phenomenon to know if nested hexagons are possible or not...

[Karlos]

Perhaps the subject should be "is the author of this article certifiable?"

[Karlos]

falemagn wrote:

I've never seen enough examples of this phenomenon to know if nested hexagons are possible or not...

There's no reason for which crust expanding and shrinking should produce hexagons, yet alone nested ones.

Correction. There's no known / immediately obvious reason. That doesn't mean they are not natural.

[Karlos]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,
your wish is my command...

O_o

You'd better be careful who you say that two round these parts, pet :lol:

[Karlos]

falemagn wrote:

Unfortunately, as you can read in part 3 of Hoagland's report, the next flyby will happen from a different perspective, basically excluding the possibility of confirming/denying the proposed theory about the observed objects on the moon. Hopefully, since it will be a lot closer than before, it will be spossible to spot other things more precisely.

I expect the mission planners have more important things to worry about than appeasing Hoaglands paranoia :-)

[Karlos]

falemagn wrote:

Mind you, this rant is a general one, not geared torward the particular topic at hand. Coming back to the original topic, whether Iapetus is artificial or not I don't know, but as of now any proof that it's natural is lacking, and all clues point to it being artificial. In the end we may discover it's as natural as a {bleep}ball, but right now that's not the case.

OK.

Q1) Does it look artificial?

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

Q2) Does an artificial appearence prove artificial nature?

Certianly not. There are a virtually uncountable number of natural systes that appear artificial at all scales.

Q3) Is there any tangible evidence to suggest that the moon in question is artificial in nature other than  its appearence.

Not yet.

Q4) Is there any evidence that is is a natural object, discounting its unusual appearence?

Yes, everything available other than the appearence seems to be well within the known boundaries for an ice moon.

[Karlos]

This is just like the Intelligent Design argument...

[Karlos]

falemagn wrote:

Q1) Does it look artificial?

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

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".

"Unnatural" carries many connotations that allow something to appear unnatural without actually being artificial in the above strict definition.

Feck, look at the cell biochemistry threads for a flawless example of the above ;-)

Q2) Does an artificial appearence prove artificial nature?

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.

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...

Certianly not. There are a virtually uncountable number of natural systes that appear artificial at all scales.

That's a contraddiction in terms. Can you make any examples
of what you have in mind?

No, it is not. Once again, you are applying a flawed reasoning that something "appearing to be X" must be "X". All I am saying is that there are plenty of things "appearing to be X" that are in fact "Y, Z etc". Appearences alone are insufficient to make an informed opinion.

The following natural things appear "artificial" as far as I am concerned:

Crystals (just about any variety), biological macromolecules, self-regulating reactions, biochemistry and life in general, quantum mechanical properties of the microscopic, the prime number series, etc.

Q3) Is there any tangible evidence to suggest that the moon in question is artificial in nature other than its appearence.

Not yet.

True.

Q4) Is there any evidence that is is a natural object, discounting its unusual appearence?

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

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

Again, without this, it simply "looks like a duck". Does it quack like one?

This thing also looks like a moon, orbits like a moon, has the composition of a moon and possesses a wide array of moon like attributes.

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.

Yes, everything available other than the appearence seems to be well within the known boundaries for an ice moon.

We have nothing else than appearance! What is this everything other than appearance you talk about?

Look up information on this moon. You will find plenty of things tabulated about it other than a picture.

[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?

[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 ;-)

[Karlos]

I have some questions that need to be answered if you wish to entertain the artifical origin idea (with respect to building something that will be clearly artificial to other intelligences), that our author makes no effort to raise, let alone answer:

1) Why make it spherical (geodesic or not) - if your technology and resources allow you to construct an artifact on such a scale, then logic dictates that you could most probably build equally impressive structures (even if smaller) in other geometries. The sphere is nature's preferred geometry for large masses. Building something that looks like a moon save for a few unusual features isn't that great a signal. A toroid, on the other hand...

2) Why park it in a conventional orbit? You could use a polar orbit, retrograde etc.

3) Why park it around Saturn? There's a lot of loose crap in orbit that will ultimately devastate your artifacts surface over a long period of time, which coupled with (1) only serves to reduce any artificial appearence over time.

[Karlos]

Dandy wrote:

falemagn wrote:
There's no reason for which crust expanding and shrinking should produce hexagons, ...

There's no reason for freezing water to produce hexagonal ice crystal structures either...

falemagn wrote:
... yet alone nested ones.

... yet alone snowflakes.

falemagn wrote:
And if you look at other pictures on the site, there are also examples of hexagonal craters being placed on a straight line, parallel to the ridge, at the same distance from one another.

Ever heard of/seen the impact of Shoemaker-Levy-9 on Jove a few years ago?
What's so hard to understand here?

falemagn wrote:
Also, crust expanding/shrinking can't explan the facets the moon seems to be made of.

Well - have you ever seen a "ball" formed of lots of soap bubbles?
Guess what shape the single bubbles have - they're hexagonally shaped!

Perhaps OT:

Hexagons are actually pretty common in nature.

The hexagonal geometry of ice and snowflakes is dictated by hydrogen bonding.

The hexagonal shape of a raft of soap bubbles arises from the fact that the hexagonal sheet gives you the most space efficient geometry (most bubbles per unit area). You can stack these hexagonally close packed sheets on top of each other (in 2 ways) to give two conformations known as HCP (hexagonally close packed) and CCP (cubic close packed). Sicne bubbles are not hard spheres, they will literally deform into an even denser arrangement that leaves no gaps and gives each bubble a tightlu defined geometry.

Take any number of equally sized hard spheres (eg marbles) and put them on a tray, shake it gently. You'll see them arrange themselves in the hexagonal pattern of a bubble raft (for exactly the same reason). Try to fill a volume with them and you will get either CCP or HCP overall. No other arrangement gives you the same packing efficiency (for hard spheres CCP/HCP is about 73 pecent or something).

[Karlos]

Yeah but saturn orbit isn't safe, that's the point. Especially for an object that size.

Saturn's outermost ring basically has no outer boundary, the particle density simply falls off the further away you get.

For a small object, the chances of being hit by debris are fairly slim at Iapetus distance, but for an object the size of Iapetus itself, well, you are going to get pummelled over time.