Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

maxtheknife · Apr 1, 2005

Calli, why do you keep invoking the idea of aliens?

najab · Apr 1, 2005

Calli doesn't, RCH does.

maxtheknife · Apr 1, 2005

Margin of error, Telfrow. The pyramids in Egypt are aligned to true north.....well, almost. Tolerances and erosion can add to the deterioration of the math. Things tend to move from order to chaos.

maxtheknife · Apr 1, 2005

RCH doesn't rule aliens out, but he leans toward a more Human explanation. As far as I can tell anyway.

telfrow · Apr 1, 2005

Margin of error, Telfrow. Excuse me? Margin of error? 60 x 60 is 3600 "degrees" - not 360? Being off by 3240 "degrees" is an accepatble margin of error? If so, please, balance my checkbook. 14.7 is "almost" 15? What if it was orginally 14? 59.091 is "almost" 60? What if it was orginally 58? Things tend to move from order to chaos. Yes, but they can move both directions. Again, the numbers are fudged to fit the "theory." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />RCH doesn't rule aliens out, but he leans toward a more Human explanation. As far as I can tell anyway.<hr /></blockquote> Really? That's not the impression I've gotten from news articles and what I've read on his website. Maybe I've misconstrued his talk about advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the distant past. Whether he believes they were some offshoot of humans or not doesn't really affect my point anyway. Hoagland is certain that there was at some point in the past at least one very advanced extraterrestrial civilization. To date, it seems as if every time he sees something strange, he asserts that it is evidence of that ancient civilizations. Crystal ruins on the Moon, which he claims were edited out of the Apollo pictures. The Face on Mars and the DM "pyramid". And now various structures on Iapetus (some of which are indeed anomalous, such as the equatorial ridge and Cassini Regio, and some of which seem quite prosaic to me). He has expressed considerable hostility to the idea that he might be wrong, to the point where attempts to suggest alternatives or the point out contradictory evidence are met with claims of conspiracy. Now, whether or not he's right, I find it very ironic that Hoagland complains about scientists being blind to alternatives by rejecting his theory, yet he himself rejects all theories other than those which bolster his assumption. It is not NASA which is blind and unscientific. It is Hoagland. One should never discard anomalies, nor discard theories out of hand. Hoagland does both. He discards things that are anomalistic in the context of his theory (that is, that don't fit his theory). Often, he does this by claiming NASA is hiding or tampering with the data. And he discards notions that these things might not be the ruins of an ancient civilization. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Apr 1, 2005

>Tolerances and erosion can add to the deterioration of the math.Ahh, but how does he know which way the numbers are going? You say that Iapetus has drifted in from exactly 60 Saturn radii, but why? And why could it not have drifted out from 59?

maxtheknife · Apr 1, 2005

Hi Calli, In it's truest definition, anything found on another platetary body, be it the moon or any other, is Extra Terrestrial or Alien to Earth.

maxtheknife · Apr 1, 2005

Hello again Calli <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> You write, "I find it very ironic that Hoagland complains about scientists being blind to alternatives by rejecting his theory, yet he himself rejects all theories other than those which bolster his assumption." Isn't that exactly what you all are doing?

najab · Apr 1, 2005

>Isn't that exactly what you all are doing?I can't speak for anyone else, but on my part: no. I have read his theory through, evaluated it, found it full of flaws and pointed them out. RCH, on the other hand, doesn't even attempt to show what he thinks the flaws are in the standard explainations, he just dismisses them out of hand.

Saiph · Apr 1, 2005

1) by definition it is extraterrestrial, but when people say it has extraterrestrial origins, they are refering to artifical origins (basically aliens). 2) No, we're not dismissing it. We are, however, looking for other explainations. Artificial orgins should be the last resort. Take for instance the e/pi redundancy that keeps getting thrown around. It may be signs of artificial manufacture. However, it can also be shown thatthe very same relationships can be generated out of completely meaningless, randomly generate numbers. This shows that the numbers can be caused by anything, and thus it is a horrible indicator of "artificiality". Hoagland jumps to the artificiality claim, and sticks with it, despite proof that it's a horrible test. 3) One must not only consider if your hypothesis fit the observation at hand, but what the consequences of it are in general. Take my "Electric sun, energy, and alternative models" thread. The assumption: The sun is a ball of charge. and there is a 10 billion volt potential over the surface. The consequences: An exploding sun, and/or relativistic solar winds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Apr 1, 2005

another part of good science, is attemping to evaluate and disprove your own theory. In scientific literature there are plenty of referees that will throw your paper out if you do not suggest possible errors, and alternatives to your findings. If you don't, then you may not have looked at all, and come to a an erroneous conclusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In it's truest definition, anything found on another platetary body, be it the moon or any other, is Extra Terrestrial or Alien to Earth.<hr /></blockquote> I meant extraterrestrial intelligent life, of course. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> And that's what Hoagland means too. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You write, "I find it very ironic that Hoagland complains about scientists being blind to alternatives by rejecting his theory, yet he himself rejects all theories other than those which bolster his assumption." Isn't that exactly what you all are doing?<hr /></blockquote> Nope. Well, some probably are somewhere. There's always someone who falls so in love with an idea that they cannot accept that it might be wrong. But frankly, I haven't even *reached* a conclusion for a lot of the weirdness on Iapetus. I've been collecting theories about the weirdness of Iapetus, in fact. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I haven't rejected many yet; there's too little to go on. The idea that Iapetus is a hidden space station seems implausible to me, though, so I'm leaning towards five or six that don't have anything to do with intelligent life. "Leaning towards" should be emphasized. I can't reject the other one out of hand. But because it seems less plausible to me, I'm going to spend less time thinking about it until something comes up that makes it more plausible. There are some pretty wild theories out there. Have a look in the thread Approaching Iapetus: what makes it two-faced? for more. I started it, but frankly have had little to contribute for a long time. I'm reading it constantly, though, because I'm fascinated by what's being discussed there. BTW, this <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Apr 1, 2005

>I believe it to be a natural moon encased in an artificial shell...Well, with that said, I believe we are almost at the point where we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. It's going to be next to impossible for either of us to gather enough evidence to disprove the other's contention - it is possible that a pre-exitsting moon was modified.I don't believe it to be so, but there's no way I can disprove it without more data and I dare say that until we have higher resolution images, you're not going to be able to assemble a killer argument either.

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

That gives me an interesting thought. It's equally speculative at this point, but I was thinking about vogon's collapsed ring notion from the other thread. How likely would it be for a small moon to become a much bigger moon by accreting the remains of a recently destroyed moon? We know there have been some whopper collisions in the Saturn system, so if it could happen anywhere, I'd think it could happen there. Hmm....this is probably happening right now with some of the moons that orbit in the rings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

This is just a general post directed at anyone that is listening. From what I understand about this particular moon, one side of it is heavily cratered. The following thread, and image suggests one possibility; however, I will let you work it out on your own: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=44199&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1

najab · Apr 1, 2005

Are you suggesting that Iapetus is the ice shield that went in front of a spaceship?That's possible, I suppose, and easily testable. If it has extra-solar origins its isotopic ratio would be different from material from our solar system.

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

Maybe, I would need to blow off the dust, and check the geometry, very time consuming. Oh, and it does not have be be ice, just simple matter. It would be cool, if it were true ;o)

geneftw · Apr 1, 2005

By regular, I mean all sides and angles are equal. My measurements? I'm just an interested citizen; not a scientist. My "measurements" are eye-ballin' it. I did put a piece of paper on my screen to mark the length of side of the large pentagon, and found it to not be regular enough for me to call regular, but the top two sides were close enough. I found that disappointing. The smaller hexes appear very regular to me, but are too small on the screen to measure closely enough. I agree with RCH's hypothesis that the regular geometry could indicate the framework of a constructed shell. At first, the fact that there are different sizes of these hexagons, etc. seems to rule out such a form, but there could be frame work reenforcing framework, and/or multiple layers. How would I test it? Hell, I'll go there and look! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Or send Cassini back for a closer look, and even take a peek at the radar data NASA is sitting on. What would falsify it for me? (See the previous paragraph.)

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

How would I test it? Hell, I'll go there and look! Or send Cassini back for a closer look, and even take a peek at the radar data NASA is sitting on. The geometry in the article suggests that particles are deflected in multiple dimensions, i.e. x, y, z, and time. What does space-time have to do with the geometry? Envision a craft attached to the moon traveling at 10-trillion miles per second towards are solar system. Wouldn't you want to deflect as many particles hitting your hull as possible, rather than taking the full blunt of the force to your shielding?

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Maybe, I would need to blow off the dust, and check the geometry, very time consuming. Oh, and it does not have be be ice, just simple matter. It would be cool, if it were true ;o) <hr /></blockquote> Yes it would. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> One possible blow to your theory is that Iapetus has a fairly even distribution of craters. (The most notable exception to this seems to be the area around the equator, near the huge ridge. This is probably not coincidence; whatever created the ridge could easily have resurfaced the area around it.) What's not even is the coloration. The leading face of Iapetus (like our moon, it is tidally locked) has a light coating of dark stuff on it. This coating is clearly younger than most of the craters, judging by the way it is distributed across them, particularly near the margins of Cassini Regio (the dark area). There are many theories as to how the coating got there. None are entirely satisfactory, and for the most part, none can yet be tested. It was hoped that the recent flyby would help resolve it, and it did answer some of the questions, but it didn't provide the key. Perhaps the 2007 flyby, which is considerably closer, will tell us more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

Steve writes "For the simply reason that once a thief has been found to commit the same crimes again and again, he's called a thief. We do NOT have to in detail tally up all his transgressions. A few blatant examples of Hoagland's transgressions against reason & all facts are MORE than enough." The article, and website are presented poorly, yes? He could have spent a bit more time on presenting his facts in a more professional manner, rather than blatantly blurting out his opinion. Are there any good quality examples of the geometry, and/or mineralogy? This is worth investigating, and many of you are highly motivated to reconstruct his perception, while including your interpretation of the facts.

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

I will try to work some geometry, with respect the the orbit, crater positioning, and mineral disposition. There is not much to work with, but I will give it a shot; however, this thread is getting huge, so we might have to continue in some other point in space-time ;o)

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2005

Probably a good idea, but I'll drop in with one last bit on that topic. There is another Saturnian moon that might be an interesting candidate for your idea: Dione. Like Iapetus, Dione is notably darker on one side than the other. Unlike Iapetus, it's the trailing hemisphere that is darker. It also has it's own remarkable feature -- the dark trailing hemisphere is streaked by bright white markings that cut across craters, suggesting that they are news. Like Iapetus, astronomers got a surprise when Cassini got close-up images of it -- the streaks aren't ice-flows or other light deposits, but are in fact vast systems of fractures leaving jagged cliff faces across the trailing hemisphere of Dione. And what's significant for your idea is that the leading hemisphere of Dione is much more heavily cratered than the trailing hemisphere. Rhea, a slightly larger body, appears to be very similar to Dione, although Cassini hasn't been able to image it close enough to date to confirm speculation that its wispy streaks are also fractures. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Apr 1, 2005

it's the trailing hemisphere that is darker The trailing edge in notably more cratered too. If a craft were to leave an artificial moon shielding in a tidal lock around Saturn, then the heavily cratered aspects of the evidence should be on the leading hemisphere, unless the craft did a 180-degree turn during deceleration. A 180-degree deceleration would leave the crafts hind-end exposed to particles, unless the craft was carrying two artificial moon shields. This would explain why Iapetus’s orbit is irregular. Some of the plains are heavily cratered while others are not. Much of the heavily cratered terrain is located on the trailing hemisphere, with the less cratered plains area existing on the leading hemisphere. --- http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sat_Dione&Display=Overview&System=English

Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

najab

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

jatslo

Guest

najab

Guest

jatslo

Guest

geneftw

Guest

jatslo

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page