Is Iapetus artificial?

[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!

[Quixote]

;-) Bear in mind that I'm posting from work, and thus have less time to frame and polish my arguments then I would prefer.

In my ice skating analogy, I sought to draw parallels between celestial mechanics and a more well known situation, to make the physics more intuitive for the casual reader who knew little of the physics involved.  In the comparison, the gravity holding two bodies together was analogized to the strength of the skaters' arms; the gravity holding them to the ice has no parallel in space, and to attempts to draw one would stretch the analogy too far.

The principle which I sought to illustrate was that any two bodies merging in space would assume a new axis of rotation, and that that axis would be perpendicular to their original directions of movement, despite whatever their original axis of rotation had been.

(Granted, it varies with the relative porportionate sizes of the bodies in question; a volkswagen sized body striking the Earth would alter its axis, but not enough to measure, let alone to notice.  -But we were postulating that the two bodies were of sizes near enough to equal to create the ridge seen around Iapetus' equator.  At those porportions, the new axis would be perpendicular to their relative directions of movement, while the "smush seam" would be similarly perpendicular to that direction, thus running through the new poles, instead of along the new equator.)

:roll: Next, it really must be repeated that such word play as "Hoaxland," while creative, still constitutes an Ad Hominum Abusive, and is not a valid argument.

;-) On to the thought that sustained meteorotic bombardment would eventually punch holes through the shell of Iapetus.  The obvious follow-up question is "what size?"  Under Hoagland's model, some of the meteorites HAVE penetrated the roof, or shell, of Iapetus, allowing its interior atmosphere (or more properly, its biosphere) to escape, eventually to freeze on the surface.  Thus, the white layer of ice and organic compounds on the leading face, where meteorites land more frequently, while the relatively less damaged trailing face still shows the original carbon black face.

This model explains WHY one face is white; to my knowlrdge the conventional model does not.

Further, one specualation regarding the ridge is that it is a support structure, built with greater strength than most of the surrounding regions.  At one time, the surrounding surface was as high as the ridge, and since then the majority of the surface has been smashed in, collapsing to the irregular depths we see now.  If this is the case, then closeup photos of the dark side would show no ridge, or the ridge at a much reduced altitude relative to the surrounding surface.

More later....

[Karlos]

Ok,

If you are going to take the scientific approach, you need to be able to argue both sides of the coin.

Iapeteus is natural. Discuss.

[Dandy]

@Quixote

Quixote wrote:
 Bear in mind that I'm posting from work, and thus have less time to frame and polish my arguments then I would prefer.

Ahhh - so you are one of those bad guys, who causes damage to his employer by using his equipement for private purposes and so risking their job (like me?)?

Quixote wrote:
In my ice skating analogy, I sought to draw parallels between celestial mechanics and a more well known situation, to make the physics more intuitive for the casual reader who knew little of the physics involved. In the comparison, the gravity holding two bodies together was analogized to the strength of the skaters' arms; the gravity holding them to the ice has no parallel in space, and to attempts to draw one would stretch the analogy too far.

The principle which I sought to illustrate was that any two bodies merging in space would assume a new axis of rotation, and that that axis would be perpendicular to their original directions of movement, despite whatever their original axis of rotation had been.

Now I understand what you mean - it was just that the wording was choosen a little bit unlucky (due to your employer looking over your shoulder? :-D)...

Quixote wrote:
(Granted, it varies with the relative porportionate sizes of the bodies in question;

Fully agreed so far...

Quixote wrote:
a volkswagen sized body striking the Earth would alter its axis, but not enough to measure, let alone to notice. -But we were postulating that the two bodies were of sizes near enough to equal to create the ridge seen around Iapetus' equator. At those porportions, the new axis would be perpendicular to their relative directions of movement, while the "smush seam" would be similarly perpendicular to that direction, thus running through the new poles, instead of along the new equator.)

Yes.
But as I pointed out in a previous post, there is a special case which can explain an natural origin for the EQUATORIAL ridge.
Admittedly such a special case would be the exception - but it is certainly *NOT* impossibel.
On the other hand - Iapetus being arteficial would be such an exception as well, although not impossibel as well - don`t you agree?

Quixote wrote:
 Next, it really must be repeated that such word play as "Hoaxland," while creative, still constitutes an Ad Hominum Abusive, and is not a valid argument.

Yes - I know.
But I wrote this last night at 3.30 a.m. and was desperately looking for something funny to keep me awake until I finished my post.
:-)
Too sad that I cant upload that (slightly edited) image of Mr. Hoagland - that provided the fun that actiually kept me awake...

How did you upload your Images? I tried the "Image" button, but it does not work with AWeb II v3.4 on my A4k with CSPPC and OS 3.9...
Edit:
Hummm - last night the .gifs for the buttons weren`t displayed - I just could see the the "placeholder" field including the word "Image". So I assumed this to be the button to upload images.
Today the images for the buttons were displayed - and now that button is named "Manager", but also doesn`t work if I click it.
Now the mystery even deepens - how did you upload your pics?
Any suggestions?

Quixote wrote:
 On to the thought that sustained meteorotic bombardment would eventually punch holes through the shell of Iapetus. The obvious follow-up question is "what size?"

Well - if we look at the biggest crater (which is approximately half as big as Iapetus' diameter) - I would assume that the body which caused it must have had a diameter of - lets say 10 km.
If a *MASSIVE* body of *THAT* size impacts an hollow body with the speed that we think to be "normal" for impacts, then it would certainly have passed trough Iapetus.
Okay - delta v (the relative difference of speed) could bell less fast as we assume - but it still would have "drilled" a deep hole - much deeper than the visible crater.
And if the impact speed was very low, then I would expect to see half of the size of the impactor mountain-like in the middle of the crater - but there`s nothing!

Quixote wrote:
Under Hoagland's model, some of the meteorites HAVE penetrated the roof, or shell, of Iapetus, allowing its interior atmosphere (or more properly, its biosphere) to escape, eventually to freeze on the surface.
valid argument.

No - as I stated above, the deep hole is missing. All that`s there is a standard crater.
So sorry - I can`t accept this as an valid argument.

Quixote wrote:
Thus, the white layer of ice and organic compounds on the leading face, where meteorites land more frequently, while the relatively less damaged trailing face still shows the original carbon black face.

This model explains WHY one face is white;

Could we agree on the term "This model *COULD* *BE* *ONE* *POSSIBEL* *EXPLANATION* why one face is white."?

Quixote wrote:
to my knowlrdge the conventional model does not.

What "conventional model" are you referring to?

Quixote wrote:
Further, one specualation regarding the ridge is that it is a support structure, built with greater strength than most of the surrounding regions.

The question is: Why?
Why should an artificial body - constructed of hexagonal planes and so having sufficiant stability - need an equatorial "support frame"?
If we are aleady speculating - it more reminds me of the spaceships mentioned in the Perry Rhodan SciFi novels (SOL-Class ships).
They were spherical as well, also had an equatorial beading, inside which the "jet outlets" of the engines were located...

Quixote wrote:
At one time, the surrounding surface was as high as the ridge, and since then the majority of the surface has been smashed in, collapsing to the irregular depths we see now. If this is the case, then closeup photos of the dark side would show no ridge, or the ridge at a much reduced altitude relative to the surrounding surface.

As I stated above - I don`t think so.
The deep holes from the impacts are missing. All that`s there are standard craters.
So sorry - I can`t accept this as an valid argument.

Quixote wrote:
More later..

You`re welcome - it`s a pleasure discussing with you!
I would like to contact you via PM on behalf something else - would that be O.K.?

[Dandy]

Basically you`re right - but I don`t mind him representing the "pro"-side, while I represent
the "con"-side, as long as the discussion stays reasonable...

[Quixote]

:-? Dang.  My perfectly good rebuttal isn't here.  It seems that I'd hit the "preview" button instead of "submit."

@Dandy:  Images are posted as follows, except that one uses square brackets instead of curly ones:

{img}URL to image{/img}

As for holes in Iapetus, check out this one:



;-) As for surfing at work, as long as I'm on break it's okay.

@Karlos: requiring the other fellow to prove your position is another Ad Hominum argument, though I don't remember the Latin for it.  It amounts to "proof by assignment."

More later....

[Dandy]

Hummmmm - that`s a pity!
I prepared some pics taken from that Hoagland site to show
a possible explanation for the appearently hexagonal craters
(one meant as a joke and some meant to be serious).

Unfortunately I don`t have a website yet - so I can`t share
them with you.
Really sad!
:-(

I will try this evening to send you the images via PM -
perhaps you can put them on your webspace and give me the
link and I edit my post(s) then and add the links - given
your agreement.

[Quixote]

8-) Well, actually, I've cross-linked them from Enterprise Mission, myself.  That's probably bad form, but nicking their copyrighted images to host myself is probably worse.  Besides, I haven't set up a site of my own.  I suppose I should; there are a few details I could point out if I took the liberty of drawing on the images, and I couldn't post them here without my own hosting.

It would probably be all right if I made sure to acknowledge their copyright.  Especially if I wrote and asked, first.

[Karlos]

Quixote wrote:

@Karlos: requiring the other fellow to prove your position is another Ad Hominum argument, though I don't remember the Latin for it.  It amounts to "proof by assignment."

More later....

Not really, but I would expect it from someone unwilling to challenge their own viewpoint.

By attempting to prove the alternate argument you learn a lot about the validity of both.

This was standard practice during what would have been my doctorate.

During post experimental disscussion, whenever I had to propose a rationalisation for any observed result that had strong alternative rationalisation, I was required to try and prove both. If it didn't have a strong alternative rationalisation, I had to look for one (apart from the really obvious cases where it is totally evident what had occured).

This process keeps you objective and prevents you from becoming bogged down in any explanation that may seem to be  appropriate early on in an investigation, only to run into fundamental stumbling block later.

You'd be surprised how many times this process leads you to the correct interpretation (that can later be verified), even if it seems like more work.

Ad hominium, indeed :-)

[Protean]

Had to jump in here; I've been tracking this particular bit of kookery. : )

There are (I'm ashamed to say) things I agree with Hoagland about, and (many more) things I don't agree with him about.
Agreed: Iapetus is weird. Perhaps the weirdest thing in the Solar System.
Agreed: Some of its features do not appear to have formed by any known natural process.
Agreed: It isn't normal.

This is where I get off Hoagland's train.
He wants to go from there to "therefore, aliens built it."
I don't see why we have to immediately jump to an anthropomorphized "someone" building it on purpose for mysterious reasons of their own. That's a good cop-out theory, one that can be used to explain just about anything (just say that the hypothetical builders have really *weird* architectural tastes), but it isn't a productive scientific theory. It isn't *interesting.*
If aliens sat in their spaceships and controlled all the Earth's weather according to their own weird alien whims, there would be no science of meteorology.
If plants and animals were all custom-made robots built, controlled and maintained by aliens for their own strange ideas of fun, there would be no science of biology.
When you say "omnipotent and inexplicable aliens did it", you effectively cut off any interesting science or speculation that might be done about whatever-it-is. At most, you can speculate about *why* the aliens would have done such a thing in such a way, but that all too often comes down to "I'm sure they had their reasons."
And the "omnipotent aliens did it according to their own whims" idea can't really be disproved, either. If the supposedly alien-built item has no concievable purpose, has a concievable purpose but a much more efficient substitute would have been far easier to build, or otherwise violates the logic of architecture, well, you can just say that the aliens were *weird* aliens and build weird things for weird reasons. The only thing that can really disprove the "aliens did it" idea is discovering that the structure in question was formed by some known natural process-- which leaves one up the creek if the structure was formed *neither* by a known natural process *nor* by aliens. The alien hypothesis has to have a way of being ruled out independently of other theories; there has to be something that can make you say "I don't know what this is or how it got here, but it's not an alien artifact, that I know."
And then there's the fact that the "aliens built it" idea cheapens the wonder of discovery. It seems so mundane, so *familiar.* Instead of a new and strange phenomenon, suddenly we have a structure built by "people" in much the same way as we build cities and things. Much like the ancients who imagined lightning to be sent down by a personified god, instead of considering the far stranger workings of electromagnetism, it resorts to anthropomorphization and familiarization to take away the alien wonder from alien wonders.
I think, or at least I *hope*, that Iapetus's strange features were formed not by the local Civic Planning board, but by some phenomenon that we've never seen before. Life, intelligence, building construction, etc. all occur on Earth right in front of us every day-- they aren't new. I want a *new* discovery.

On the other hand, if aliens *did* build Iapetus (or something else), that could at least open up some interesting questions in biology, sociology, economics (how did they PAY for all this?), psychology, and various other odd aspects of the Aliens Who Did It. But only if it's possible to study those aliens somehow and gain some insight into their nature and motives. Otherwise, science ends up hitting a frustrating dead end, and what could have been a fascinating phenomenon to investigate becomes permanently inexplicable.

[Dandy]

@Quixote:

Quixote wrote:
...
It would probably be all right if...

I was able to access your PM, but I`m not able to reply (button is not working) or to create new PM (button not working as well).

It appears tha you are rather limited in this amiga forum when browsing with an *REAL* classic Amiga and with Amiga software!

The "Quote"-button here as well isn`t working...

It`s a shame!

[Quixote]

;-) There is now more from Enterprise Mission.  Check out page six.

Fascinating stuff.

[Dandy]

Quixote wrote:
...
Fascinating stuff.

What I found most fascinating were the links to the "Nazi-Bell", "Rhine valley experiment", "Philadelphia experiment" and Einsteins Antigravitational Theories...

While following the links I came to a page where "lifters" were shown, and there also was an report about an weired looking canadian (forgot his name), who did many experiments in that direction.

There were photos/videos how he managed to melt metal just with these magnetic fields at room temperature.

There also were reports about the so called "spokes" in the rings of Saturn and an scientific explanation of them.

Somewhere there it was said, that these hyper-energetic forces can leave amazing traces on bodies that were exposed to them - like hexagonal shapes.

Maybe this could be the explanation for Hoaglands hexagonal craters on Iaphetus and other strange shapes there?

From my point of view that would make a lot of more sense than to say those strange shapes are the proof for extra-terrestical life and that Iaphetus was made arteficially by them as a kind of spaceship to bring life to Earth and then being "parked" in an Saturn orbit.
:inquisitive:
It would not require such a big object to spread life in form of some microbes around the cosmos...

Remember the Mars-meteorite found by the scientsts in the ice of the south pole. They say there are traces of ancient microbes on/in it...

[asian1]

Bizarre boulders at Enceladus' surface:

From New Scientist:

On 14 July, Cassini swooped in for an unprecedented close-up view of the wrinkled moon. Its Imaging Science Subsystem (ISS) camera has since returned pictures of a boulder-strewn landscape that is currently beyond explanation. The "boulders" appear to range between 10 and 20 metres in diameter in the highest-resolution images, which can resolve features just 4 m across.

“That’s a surface texture I have never seen anywhere else in the solar system,” says David Rothery, a planetary geologist at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK.

Cracks crisscross Enceladus's surface - possibly as a result of the moon being repeatedly squeezed and stretched by the gravity of Saturn and other moons nearby. But Rothery points out the boulders avoid - rather than fill - the cracks. This might indicate that the fracturing took place after the boulders had already formed.
Alien landscape

John Spencer, a Cassini team member at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, agrees that the images are puzzling. “You would expect to see small craters or a smooth, snow-covered landscape at this resolution," he told New Scientist. "This is just strange. In fact, I have a really hard time understanding what I’m seeing.”

NASA scientists have been locked in discussions since 15 July and are expected to pass judgment on what they think this peculiar surface might be later on Tuesday.

But Elizabeth Turtle, a Cassini imaging team member at the University of Arizona in Tucson, US, warns there will be no quick answers. “Trying to figure out what is going on is going to take a lot longer than a weekend of swapped emails,” she says.

[blobrana]

Hum,
Ice boulders...

[Karlos]

Quixote wrote:
;-) There is now more from Enterprise Mission.  Check out page six.

Fascinating stuff.

Wow, I take it all back :-o Hoagland truly has sussed it out this time! I'm convinced.





Yeah, whatever.