Iapetus artificial construct - Part Two

[CalliArcale]

This thread is the continuation of the discussion started in thread .Facinating article: Iapetus artificial construct!<br /><br />In advance, I would like to ask that users confine themselves to discussing Iapetus, since that's what the thread's about. The last thread was getting distracted by side-discussions on ancient Egypt, which really is not at all relevant and would in fact be better discussed in Free Space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

(An intervention)<br /><br />JonClarke:<br /><br />I'm concerned. The last I saw of you at another web site, where Mars geology issues were being discussed, you had posted a long response to the powder-is-mud, berries-are-fossils crowds. You ended it: "It is the fact that people are not prepared to learn and repeat the same errors over and over again that makes contributing to these boards so frustrating.... so I am giving up."<br /><br />I hope that you are not heading for the same type of burnout here. You seem to be enjoying the give and take for now, but when it starts to feel like beating your head against a brick wall please take a break but don't punish the rest of us by disappearing entirely. <br /><br />Bottom line: The folks you are dealing with now will be no more receptive to your instruction than the Mars mud and fossils groups. And yes, anyone who thinks they see the great wall of China in every straight line in the solar system is sorely in need of instruction.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Geos stated that "you could never build a pyramid with 3000 BC technology." </font><br /><br />I would certainly be interested in a post covering the complete spectrum of "3000 BC Technology." Obviously, with the absolute "never" mentioned, the poster professes a complete knowledge of this subject.<br /><br />Btw, I somehow missed the connection between Egyptian Pyramids and Iapetus in the old thread. I don't think I missed much though..<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[telfrow]

For the most part, I think Geos is just trolling. But Hoagland mentions the pyramid in Part 5 of his theory, to wit: <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Amazing as it may sound, there is actual human precedent for this idea: embodying the geometry of the material used in constructing a particular monument … in the monument’s final macro-geometric form! The most striking example of this practice (before Iapetus, that is …) was brought to my attention several years ago, by my good friend and colleague, Stan Tenen.<br />Stan pointed out that the Great Pyramid, located on the Egypt’s Giza Plateau, is composed primarily (except for a bit of granite “here and there” inside …) of another carbon-compound known as “calcium carbonate” (CaCO3). Most folks know it better as “limestone.” It’s also known as “calcite” -- the rock type that forms huge layers of the 70-million-year-old strata making up the Plateau, as well as much of the rest of Egypt -- extending east, all the way to Indonesia …. <br />Huge blocks of calcium carbonate were quarried (not far from the Plateau …), and carefully shaped into the “six million tons of limestone blocks …” that were then used to create a structure over 750 feet on a side and almost 500 feet high: the legendary Great Pyramid itself. <br />Stan, both to me and on the radio, noted that if you just look at the exterior geometry of the Great Pyramid (below), shaped visually by the three angles it presents from any one side -- the 76-degree angle at the apex, and the two 52-degree angles where it touches the ground at the base -- you will actually be looking at a giant replica of the same internal angles of the calcium carbonate crystal of which it is composed!!<br />In other words: the Great Pyramid – exactly like Iapetus in our scenario – is a demonstrable giant replica of the precise material that someone used to build it!</font><br /><br />(The illustration posted below accompanies the article.)<br /><br />Which leads me to a question for Jon C <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Steve, congratulations. You've successfully regergitated everything that you were taught. It's all well thought out theory.<br /><br />There is one small problem. No it's a big problem that weighs 80 tons!!! Some sites have 100+ ton stones!<br /><br />Given: We have more technology than the Egyptians did 2500-4000 B.C..<br /><br />Problem: Our best, most modern construction companies cannot duplicate the engineering feat displayed at Giza.<br /><br />That is your problem. You have to prove how they built the damn things! Show me. And you have to show me on many levels. <br />Economic feasability, logistical feasability, time feasability. It has to be complete. Not like Plait's half ass web site. You're gonna have to get off of your butt and defend your theory. <br /><br />Hawass simply denied research access to those who wished to further a working model. Doesn't anyone else find that objectionable as a scientist? I'm not a scientist and I find it objectionable as a responsible adult!<br /><br />It's more likely the smaller pyramids were built in an effort to mimic what the Egyptians inherited.<br /><br />We were discussing tolerances, decay, something Plait fails to discuss on his website, btw.<br /><br />Has anyone heard any news about the Iapetus radar data yet?

 

[grooble]

I think Aliens built the statue of liberty. Theres no way a man could have carved it.

 

[silylene old]

You know, if one of those Egyptian square pyramids was hurling through space at about 20km/s, and somehow collided with the Moon point-first, this collision should create a crater about 130 km in size, possibly with a square shape. Think crater Pythagoras.....<br /><br />Click! Bingo! Wow, I have just created an amazing explanation! Toss in a little psuedo-archeology, sprinkle in a few polysyllabic words, leverage my PhD, nod at the Bermuda Triangle crowd, babble some Egyptology, discard my self-respect... and I could now set up a website, write a couple of books, give a few talks at UFO conventions, get famous and command a reasonably good speaker's fee and royalty stream.<br /><br />+++++++++++<br /><br />Does that mean that the crater Pythagoras on the Moon was created by a flying Egyptian pyramid?<br />No.<br /><br />Why not?<br />There are more reasonable alternative explanations. For example, the square shape of this crater could have been caused by subsequent slumping of opposing crater walls.<br /><br />Moral of the story:<br />First eliminate all logical explanations for a phenomena before considering the more bizarre. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

My post on page 58 of the previous volume of this thread would have made a lot more sense if I had included the images. Apologies to all for my incompetence.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />Image 1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Image 2 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks mate. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Don't worry, I won't give up on this forum and let it be dominated by Hoaglandites. But yes burnout is a risk, as is spending so much time here that family etc. suffer.<br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Hi telfrow<br /><br />You are right about calcite. The basic crystal structure is rhombohedral, however the actual morphology is highly variable, from hexagonal-cross sectioned stumpy pointed crystals to needles, rhombs and more complex shapes http://www.calcite.be/morphology.html . But it never, to my knowledge, forms four-side pyramids. But I could be wrong. I so, it is simply one morphology amongst many. <br /><br />The egyptians certainly did not have modern mineralogy, chemistry or crystallography, so they would not have known that the limestone of the pyramids was basically made of calcite. if they had, and wanted to represent the basic crystal structure, they would have made them rhombohedral in shape, the same goes for any aliens.<br /><br /> As usual Hoagland is out of his tree. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[odysseus145]

>>Economic feasability, logistical feasability, time feasability.<br /><br />Feasability? Pharaoh wanted a pyramid so they built one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Thanks Jon.<br /><br />That's what I thought. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">The egyptians certainly did not have modern mineralogy, chemistry or crystallography, so they would not have known that the limestone of the pyramids was basically made of calcite. if they had, and wanted to represent the basic crystal structure, they would have made them rhombohedral in shape, the same goes for any aliens.<br /><br />As usual Hoagland is out of his tree.</font><br /><br />You cannot prove him wrong; therefore, he must be right, or visa versa. Attacking someone without evidence is not necessarily a good argument. In fact, you are committing multiple fallacies, and should not be taken seriously. For example, Hoagland is presenting a perception that is currently plausible. You cannot definitely refute his interpretation of the facts, and he cannot definitively prove his hypothesis with the limited facts. NASA is going to pass very close to Iapetus in 2007, and this should clear up most of the speculation one way or the other.<br /><br />I would be curious as to how Titan plays into all this artificial moon speculation. Could it be that Titan is part of the puzzle? Terra-forming technology maybe?<br /><br />"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sherlock Holmes

 

[maxtheknife]

Come on, I'm sure at least one of you has some imagination. Let me give you an example.<br /><br />It just so happens that my father is one of the pioneers of applicaple ultra sonic technology. I have a few machines in my factory that utilize ultra sound to effectively weld two pieces of polyester plastic together. Interesting to note that there is a quartz crystal in the center of each ultra sonic horn....anyway,,,,When one touches the 'horn' when it's on and vibrating at some 10k-20k (adjustable) cycles p/ sec, one's hand literally glides over the surface of the horn. It feels like one's hand is effectively weightless.<br /><br />You see Steve, me and my family have been around the world too. We also happen to have some creative geniuses in the family. Both artistic and mechanical. We have patents and have solved problems that we were told were 'impossible'. So if you went to Egypt and failed to ask any tough questions and formulate an original idea of your own, your not a scientist, you're a follower.<br /><br />It's been theorized that whoever built the pyramids may have used such technology. Did Khufu have ultra sound? <br /><br />See that? No aliens need be invoked for my theory.<br /><br />Seriously, how many men at the ends of how many ropes tied to an 80 ton block of stone would it take to move that puppy? I'm sure one of you can accurately answer that question. <br /><br />Telfrow and Jon, RCH's point is perhaps a bit out of context for you guys. I would encourage you to delve a little deeper and read some of his articles about HD physics. Crystals are interesting and come in many shapes and sizes,,,,agreed. What's important to Hoagland's point is that they come in the tetrahedral shape relevent to his arguement.<br /><br />You detract from the point of his entire HD model. You'll need to read more Hoagland to understand. It has to do with a pyrmaid inscribed in a sphere and where the apexes touch the sphere. Every planet in the solar system has a significant upwelling

 

[maxtheknife]

Jatslo, thank you for that bit of intelligence <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[geneftw]

OK, thank you for posting that. Now I can take a look at the "my ellipses match better than your polygons" thing. <br />I disagree. I'm not really responding to MY SPECIFIC polygons, as they were very crudely drawn. What I'm disagreeing with is that so, so, many of those craters more closely resemble polygons (at least close to regular) than they do circles. It's hard to substantiate this by other means than just saying, "Look at it." Y'all take a look 'n' see what ya think.

 

[geneftw]

I'm not familiar with that thread, but as it turns out, NASA is now confirming water on Mars.<br />Please, let's not discuss this out-of topic topic any further; just Gooooooogle search "water on Mars."<br />(Some of those links will also contain recent information that confirms RCH's Mars Tidal Model.) <br />Now, back to Iapetus.........

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Telfrow and Jon, RCH's point is perhaps a bit out of context for you guys. I would encourage you to delve a little deeper and read some of his articles about HD physics. Crystals are interesting and come in many shapes and sizes,,,,agreed. What's important to Hoagland's point is that they come in the tetrahedral shape relevent to his arguement. <br />You detract from the point of his entire HD model. You'll need to read more Hoagland to understand. It has to do with a pyrmaid inscribed in a sphere and where the apexes touch the sphere. Every planet in the solar system has a significant upwelling of energy at 19.5 degrees. El Nino, Olympus Mons, the Red Spot, etc.... </font><br /><br />Max, I've read <i>all</i> the articles on his site…including the ones concerning "Hyperdimensional physics." I've posted that fact three times now. I'm a little tired of telling you.<br /><br />And with all due respect, my post and Jon's response have nothing to do with "Hyperdimensional physics." It has to do with the assertion made in section of Part Five of "Moon With a View": i.e., the contention <b>all</b> calcium carbonate crystals have "internal angles" that mirror the angles of the pyramids ( a peak or apex at 76 degrees, and two sides at 52 degrees.). To support his contention, Hoagland shows what is obviously a piece of calcium carbonate crystal, not the "internal structure."<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hoagland: …if you just look at the exterior geometry of the Great Pyramid you will actually be looking at a giant replica of the same internal angles of the calcium carbonate crystal of which it is composed!! <br />In other words: the Great Pyramid – exactly like Iapetus in our scenario – is a demonstrable giant replica of the precise material that someone used to build it!</font><br /><br />His assertion may be correct for the (carefully chosen?) single piece of calcium carbonate crystal he uses to defend his argument, but when you investi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Come on, I'm sure at least one of you has some imagination. Let me give you an example.</font><br /><br />I glued a ship to the artificial moon around Saturn with some Elmer's to demonstrate how the moon might have been positioned within the tidal lock that we are observing today. How's that for imaginative? I even used my son’s crayons to draw it.

 

[maxtheknife]

Just cuz the king wanted one, doesn't make it feasable. You need to lay out a model and then prove it. Drawing pics of the pyramid w/ ramps and lot's of men standing around doing nothing does not get the 80+ ton block cut and moved. Lol, you guys don't even need NASA's help to prove your theory.<br /><br />Speaking of tolerance and margin of error. Isn't it true that the great pyramid is aligned closer to true north than Greenwich royal obserbvatory?<br /><br />Face it....ignoring Iapetus as a possible artificial moon is irresponsible. We set out to look for life. Extant, extinct, macro, micro was never specified. Stay objective and keep your eye on the Buckeyball.<br /><br />Why put off till 2007 what can be done today? Do we have to wait till 2007 to get the radar data?<br /><br />Open your minds, folks. The world is a mysterious place. It's more intersting and mystifying than we could have possibly hoped for. http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm <br /><br />Don't you want to know what this is?

 

[telfrow]

I posted the following link for Gene on page 58 of Part One. It should answer some of your questions about logistics.<br /><br />http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/0699feat.html<br /><br />As for providing any further information, why bother? We'll just be "muddying the waters" and offering "imbecilic pseudoscientific" babble, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Don't you want to know what this is?</font><br /><br />Looks like a Star in the background; however, I might not be able to prove it, so what else could it be?

 

[centsworth_II]

This is the forum: <b>"Space Science & Astronomy"</b><br /><br />THIS is off topic to the forum: <b>"Iapetus artificial construct"</b><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Face it....ignoring Iapetus as a possible artificial moon is irresponsible.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ignoring it as a possible natural moon is also irresponsible. Please bear that in mind when criticizing people who think that it is natural. It is also dangerous to assume that it is unnatural (the logically less likely possibility) on the basis of what amounts to a hunch.<br /><br />Consider this.<br /><br />A woman named Linda Morabito, a JPL engineer, was working on the downlink of images from the Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1979. She noticed something that was most definintely anomalous -- a huge apparition rising over the limb of Io, and a bright spot just past the terminator of Io, which was clearly either something impossibly luminous or another huge apparition rising above Io, high enough to poke into sunlight. Would it have been irresponsible of her to ignore the possiblity that this was something created by intelligent life on Io? Or would seriously entertaining that idea have blinded her to the truth -- that this was an entirely natural phenomenon, albeit one which previously had been observed nowhere except on Earth: active volcanism? In fact, she was observing volcanic plumes from what would later be named Pele and Loki. For fun, take a look at the Io plume discovery image. Now *that* is an anomaly. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (Or it was at the time; now that we know what it is, it's not anomalous at all any more.)<br /><br />So try not to get frustrated with people just because they don't happen to agree with you. You already agree that there's no way to prove today whether Iapetus is an artificial object. Surely that means you can understand why somebody might entertain the notion that it is entirely natural, just like most of the other stuff in the sky?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>