New Iapetus Theory

[zavvy]

<b>Have We Cracked Saturn's Walnut?</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />TWO oddities on Saturn's moon Iapetus could have a single cause. One hemisphere is much darker than the other, and a huge ridge on the equator on the darker side makes the moon look rather like a giant walnut. Both these mysterious features could be the result of an ancient dust-up between the moon and one of Saturn's primordial rings. At least, that's the conclusion radio astronomer Paulo Freire came to after looking at pictures of Iapetus taken by the Cassini spacecraft at the end of last year.<br /><br />When Italian astronomer Giovanni Cassini discovered the 1400-kilometre-wide moon in 1672, he noticed the hemisphere that faces forward as Iapetus orbits Saturn is much darker than the other half.<br /><br />And when NASA's Cassini flew by Iapetus on 31 December 2004 it spotted another intriguing feature: a ridge 1300 kilometres long, occasionally 20 kilometres high and stretching a third of the way round the equator. Carolyn Porco, leader of Cassini's imaging team at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, says, "We don't yet have a viable theory for the equatorial ridge."<br /><br />Freire, of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, thinks otherwise. Because both the ridge and the dark coating are on the same side of the moon, he thinks that they are linked. Freire argues that both features formed when the moon collided with the edge of one of Saturn's rings a long time ago. "I was looking at the Cassini pictures, and the idea suggested itself to me," he says.<br /><br />According to Freire, debris from the ring smashed into a narrow region along the moon's equator, piling up to create the ridge. Consistent with his claim that the moon only grazed the ring is the fact that the ridge does not extend over the entire hemisphere. If the moon had fully entered the ring, a ridge would have formed over a 180-degree arc of

 

[maxtheknife]

They write: "We don't yet have a viable theory for the equatorial ridge." <br /><br />They write: "Freire admits that the moon's orbit is a headache. "This is quite hard to solve," he says. "Unless there have been large orbital changes, I don't see how a collision with a ring can ever have occurred."<br /><br />No duh. They have headaches because they refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Artificiality is the strongest model available. Explore it. It's testable. <br /><br />Uh-oh....QUICK! Move this thread to PHENOMENA!!!!

 

[najab]

><i>Artificiality is the strongest model available.</i><p>Actually, artificiality is the weakest of all models. In order to accept that it's artificial we need to explain "who", "when", "how" and "why".</p>

 

[maxtheknife]

No kidding, Naj....that's the point. Seeking the answers to the new questions raised.<br /><br />The fact that we have no idea who, how, and why is irrelevant to the question and in no way diminishes the data. For those questions, we need to start working, digging, learning, etc. We may actually need to get Hawass to step out of the way so we can dig and see what's in that chamber that sonar indicated is under the Sphinx's front paws. It's that or start digging at Cydonia or,,,,,turn Cassini around and hurry back to Iapetus.<br /><br />As to when, we can actually make a few good guesses. Go ahead and get your feet wet. Start reading what all these scientists have to say. TVF, Carlotto, Brandenberg, Mcdaniel, Crater, Dipietro, Molenaar, et al. Try and forget RCH. Approach the subject like you never heard of him. Shouldn't be too hard, eh?<br /><br />I've a guess on when....the last time the constellation Leo was gazed upon by the Great Sphinx was about 10,500 years ago.....Hmm AND the three great pyramids matched the Belt of Orion perfectly. Question is, can Giza be tied to Cydonia? I think so.... Did you know that Cairo means Mars? hmm<br /><br />I'm not convinced that the pyramids and megaliths on Earth were constructed at the same time as the ones on Mars, but that there is a connection seems inescapable.<br /><br />Let's see, I believe Carlotto estimated the ruins at Cydonia at around 25k - 30k years old. TVF and Hoagland say it's 500k.<br /><br />Isn't science wonderful? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Just when you think you have all the answers, they go and change the quesitons. How appropriate.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[nazcalito]

"Actually, artificiality is the weakest of all models. In order to accept that it's artificial we need to explain "who", "when", "how" and "why"."<br /><br />You do not need to have all of the answers beforehand in order to investigate something.

 

[igorsboss]

Maybe on the final pass, Cassini can get a better image of the Iapetian thruster complex... That would settle the debate...

 

[najab]

You've been told before not to bring Mars or Egypt into discussions about Iapetus.<br /><br />You won't be told again.

 

[najab]

Re-read what I wrote. I said that to <i>accept</i> the theory that it is artificial, we would have to find answers to at least some of those questions.

 

[CalliArcale]

I'd love to hear what vogon13 has to say about this. It sounds very similar (but not identical) to his "collapsed ring" theory. It's intriguing.<br /><br />Personally, I'm more in favor of the tectonics idea, since it would also explain why there are so few craters just north and south of the ridge. Most of Iapetus is extremely battered and ancient, but there's some suspiciously young surface there, as if there was some kind of volcanic or tectonic activity on the site. Also, as noted in the article, that theory doesn't need to explain a hypothetical move of Iapetus to its current location.<br /><br />Fascinating! Thanks for sharing the article, zavvy! <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>

 

[jmilsom]

Thanks najaB, <br /><br />I mentioned on Jon Clarke's thread that it is great that some of the people studying Iapetus are venturing forth with papers again. The Freire theory is quite compelling and well argued - but figuring out how it got from a closer ring sweeping position to its current orbit must be mathematicians nightmare! However, it really does seem the best theory to date.<br /><br />It does however, contradict a theory put forward at the Vienna conference that JonClarke posted earlier, i.e.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br /><br />IAPETUS <br /><br />Organics are concentrated near the equator, ice at the poles. The ices include CO2 and CN compounds. The regolith is very porous, with a low thermal inertia. <b> The dark material on Iapetus is not hemispherical, therefore is not of external origin. </b> The boundaries are diffuse, and therefore not cryovolcanic. One author suggested that they are geysers deposits, similar to what has been seen on Triton. They may be linked to the equatorial ridge, which does not continue right round the moon. The dark material seems to be symmetrically distributed north and south of the ridge, suggesting a link.<br /><br /></font><br /><br />The sentence I have made bold directly contradicts Freire's theory. Does anyone have more information? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Go ahead and lock it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, you lose. <br /><br />Spare us the grandstanding. Why don't you just merge this thread w/ the new continued Iapetus thread, tough guy. <br /><br />I'm allowed to refrence and submit factual, undisputed data that's relevant to the discussion.

 

[vogon13]

Hi Cali. Addressed this idea 5/12/05, 10:41 pm in the Approaching Iapetus thread.<br /><br />I don't claim collapsing ring theory as my own, I only fleshed out haggling details.<br /><br />As I've said before, any explanation that figures out the two symmetrical diverging attendant ridges wins the gold ring. <br /><br />Modesty forbids me from pointing out who here among the SDC posters has done precisely that.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Go ahead and lock it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, you lose.</i><p>Actually, the sanction under consideration doesn't affect the <i>thread</i> in any way.<p>><i>Spare us the grandstanding. Why don't you just merge this thread w/ the new continued Iapetus thread, tough guy.</i><p>I assure you, it's not grandstanding. And even if the forum software allowed merging of threads, this is a <b>scientific</b> thread, which we will not let get sidetracked into RCH-ish non-science.<p>><i>I'm allowed to refrence and submit factual, undisputed data that's relevant to the discussion.</i><p>Your earlier post was none of the three.</p></p></p></p></p>

 

[maxtheknife]

Right....So I'm not allowed to defend my theory?<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science<br /><br />Your the one who asked for who, what, WHEN and why. I just tried to answer the when for you. Was it a rhetorical question? lol<br /><br />I'm not out of bounds....you are.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

Let me summarise your your hypothesis and reasoning:<br /><br />Premise: Iapetus is artificial.<br /><br />Reasoning: Iapetus is artificial (like the pyramids (which are artificial (because the DM Pyramid is artificial (because the Face on Mars is artificial (because the whole Cydonia complex is artificial (because RCH says so.))))<br /><br />Conclusion: Simply expand the brackets - Iapetus is artificial because RCH says so. Theory proved.<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />This is <b>not</b> science and will not be tolerated in the Space Science and Astronomy forum.

 

[Leovinus]

Who is to say that all of Saturns rings existed in a single plane? Perhaps a moon got smashed up in Iapetus' plane (perhaps smashing up a piece of that moon to form it) and then Iapetus gradually scooped all that material back up while orbiting leaving the dark face and the equatorial ridge in the process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Forces that 'focus' or as I have been saying, collimate, ring particles into nice tight sharp geometrical forms like hoops (as seen from above) are orders of magnitude too weak at Iapetus' distance from Saturn in the case of ring debris orbiting Saturn. Forces would be operable in the vicinity of Iapetus due to <i>Iapetus</i>. Iapetus influence would be a very short range effect though (compared to its distance from Saturn). Two Iapetus diameters (< 3000 km) would have to be considered an upper limit. Orbital period around Iapetus at minimum altitude above surface is ~3 hours.<br /><br />Forces would of course be gravity of Iapetan mass, and the physics of a large swarm of particles in orbit and interacting (mostly via collision) to collapse to the Laplacian plane. Smaller forces would be tidal effects of distant sun, Saturn and Titan. The occaisional 'interloping' outer irregular satellite and passing comet would be even more slight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

No, not because RCH says so. Because carefull analysis of the data says so.....by many different scientists who have been published in scientific journals. I'll spare you this post again, but by all means, reread & respond. So far none of you have. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=phenomena&Number=204569&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&vc=1<br /><br />Attack the messenger. That's your only defense. <br /><br />All I did was submit factual data to answer your question as to WHEN. I'm sorry, but truth is truth. I can't help that data which supports our theory is in Egypt or Cydonia, Underwater or on Iapetus.<br /><br />No, theory not proven....theory strengthened.....again. We have a chain of evidence that constitutes a preponderance. What you have are surprises and ad hoc theories to account for them. A broken chain, if you will. Whose theory is stronger?<br /><br />When comes the part where you admit that we may be right?<br /><br />What's the problem? What's holding you back? Pride? Fear of the unknown? I'm not sure I understand. Please help me to understand.<br /><br />Threatening people only serves to inflame the issue. I don't want to go there......You're new as a moderator and I appreaciate your enthusiasm. Just be carefull, objective, and considerate, that's all. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Can we move on now?<br /><br />Vogon, how does your Saturn ring theory account for the many hexagonal craters scattered about Iapetus? How about Nazcalito's anomalies? I see organization in Naz's pics. Don't you?<br /><br />I think the Iapetus thread needs to be moved up here, or vice versa.....either way, the ~~cough~~ software for cutting and pasting to join the threads exists. Of that, I'm even more sure than I am

 

[maxtheknife]

I guess RCH isn't the only one looking for artificiality.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_ringworld_050415.html

 

[bobw]

<font color="yellow"> I see organization in Naz's pics. Don't you? </font><br /><br />Of course I do. He counts real well up to six or eight or so. Another thing I noticed is that craters have been organized into a group called 'raised platforms' or something LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I wish we, the SDC community, could agree on one thing: <font color="yellow">The discussion of ET doings, constructions, or civilizations does not belong in the Space Science forum. It belongs in SETI, if not phenomina, if not science fiction.</font><br /><br />One of the things that makes SDC such an attractive site is the wide range of discussions that can be found here. However, at least one of the forums should be devoted to serious discussion of space science. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_ringworld_050415.html<br /><br />If it belongs on SDC, it belongs in the forum.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"If it belongs on SDC, it belongs in the forum."</font><br /><br />Interesting that you should choose a SETI article to make your point. What better place for that topic than the SETI forum? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacechump]

That's just stupid Max because that article has nothing to do with Iapetus or its structure. You just throw a bunch of random topics together and call it a theory...and still for all this "evidence" you talk about I haven't seen it from you.

 

[maxtheknife]

Come on Space..... It has eveything to do w/ Iapetus and giving it a FAIR evaluation. <br /><br />Why not look for signs and evidence in our OWN solar system? I legitmized the question for you of whether or not it's even OK to look at Iapetus from a standpoint of artificiality. That post was all about providing some perspective. Great post, Max. Thanks, Max! lolol<br /><br />Now just admit it for me and I'll leave y'all alone! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />The theory that Iapetus may be artificial has merit.<br /><br />Go ahead....say it. It won't kill you, I promise <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />