New Iapetus Theory

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Why not look for signs and evidence in our OWN solar system?"</font><br /><br />By all means, look for signs of ETI in own solar system. Just do it in the proper forum: SETI (or possibly Phenomia -- depends on the scientific validity of the methods). <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacechump]

"The theory that Iapetus may be artificial has merit."<br /><br />No...no it does not. Other theories allow for simpler explanations and assumptions even if its distance from Saturn is a thorn. You on the other hand grasp at straws by creating more questions asked than answered.

 

[CalliArcale]

Regardless of whether the concept has merit or not, why does the "Iapetus might be artificial" idea have to be brought up in almost every thread mentioning Iapetus? There are other ideas out there.<br /><br />Maxtheknife, you are insinuating that your topic (Iapetus possibly being artificial) isn't getting enough time. And yet there have been at least four threads on the topic, all of which have been very long, in three different forums. There's only been one thread on the topic of Iapetus' ridge possibly being swept up Saturnian ring material, and one generic thread about Iapetus' peculiarities. Your topic is getting a great deal of time. You don't need to monopolize every conversation about Iapetus. Your point is being made elsewhere.<br /><br />Besides, I absolutely feel that all ideas should have a chance to get equal time. That means people get to talk about Iapetus' ridge being the result of Iapetus plowing through a ring. Please allow them to do so. I really do not like deleting posts or locking threads. I want people to be able to talk about whatever they want. But if someone is determined to derail a conversation (a practise known on the Internet as "trolling"), I have little alternative.<br /><br />Getting back to the topic of this thread, I am skeptical that the ridge could be the result of Iapetus moving through a Saturnian ring. The idea vogon13 likes seems more plausible to me (that it's a collapsed Iapetus ring). The ridge seems like a comparatively young feature, given the paucity of craters in its proximity, so Iapetus would've had to have had a major orbital shift very recently, and without producing any really big craters in the process. (Iapetus has some woppers of craters, but they are clearly very ancient.) That just seems rather unlikely to me, although perhaps someone better at orbital mechanics can take a better shot at that one.<br /><br />The tectonics thing seems most plausible to me, although there's a problem with that too. If I <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>

 

[zavvy]

Thanks Calli...<br /><br />I sort of gave up on this thread after it got derailed..

 

[vogon13]

The new Hyperion pictures are showing dark bottomed craters all over. If the dark material is confirmed as being the same kerogen(like) material seen smeared all over Iapetus' leading hemisphere, the existence of the equatorial ridge structure and the dark material on Iapetus would seem to be rather more coincidental than both features sharing a common origin.<br /><br />Recall the dark material of Iapetus has already been confirmed as a good spectral match to the kerogen(like) material coating the D-type asteroids. Sadly, there has never been a meteorite find on earth that indicated it came from a D-type parent body. Probably the only way we can get sample of the Iapetan dark stuff in my lifetime.<br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[vogon13]

A small object experiencing a grazing collision with Iapetus, under apparently rare but possible conditions, can 'loft' a percentage of the impact debris into space. I make no specific claim as to the efficiency of this process (I suspect it is low) in putting material into orbit, but material dislodged from Iapetus at velocities of ~950 to ~1600 mph at the proper angle per the surface have a chance of achieving orbit. Material over the high end of that range will have exceeded Iapetus's escape velocity, but would have to go quite a bit faster still to escape Saturn's gravitational pull. Material that falls short of 950 mph will (re)impact the surface of Iapetus. Looking at the nice blow ups in the Saturn picture thread, you can't help but notice how beat up Iapetus is. Perhaps much of the escaped material in independent Saturnian orbit came back eventually to Iapetus. I think a good case can be made that quite a bit of this material nailed Hyperion. The new close ups show an extremely battered surface.<br /><br />Also, while looking at the new Hyperion pictures, does it look like a certain crater size is way more prevalent than other crater sizes? Seems like in pictures of earth's moon, the craters are nicely arrayed in a wide variety of sizes, Hyperion seems to have a preferred crater size for some reason. (I don't do crater counts, maybe its not that far off expectations, but to me, it looks like the crater/size stats are skewed.)<br /><br /> <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>

 

[silylene old]

I also think a crater count by size for Hyperion would be interesting. <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>

 

[vogon13]

It's such a freaky weird looking thing. Diseased, mutant, pocked.<br /><br />Not a pretty moonlet at all.<br /><br />But still compelling.<br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

Hyperion? Yeah, it's freaky looking. I can't stop looking at it! It's so bizarre. All the more proof that one should not stop exploring the Saturn system and focus on just one strange thing. The Saturn system is full of mysteries. I fell in love with it during the Voyager mission, and Cassini is making me even happier. It puts the Galileo mission to shame, because there's just so much more going on around Saturn. <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>

 

[vogon13]

After Phoebe, Hyperion, and the inner 'rocks', I'm thinking these smaller irregular satellites merit further scrutiny from Cassini.<br /><br />While I am sure the wish list for the extended mission is huge and getting 'huger' everyday, I would still like to see some close ups of the small irregular satellites between Iapetus and Phoebe. IIRC, there are 'scads' of them. Perhaps some of the big loops needed to see Iapetus again will periapsisize (not sure it's a word, but it works for me) near one or more of them and we can get a peak.<br /><br />Obviously, any of the 'outies' even halfway orbiting Saturn near the plane of the ecliptic will be very interesting to look at, especially the larger specimens.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />{dark bottom craters perhaps? I'm tellin' ya', I'm on a roll!}<br /><br /> <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>

 

[bonzelite]

i think the equatorial wall on iapetus is too thick and grandiose a feature to be collapsed ring material. as well, it has linear ridges atop it running the length of it, nearly perfectly. i would assume a collapsed ring would not leave such delicate features behind. and if something collapsed so perfectly, how could it have remained on the surface, with such height and robustness? <br /><br />about hyperion, i sent this letter to carolyn porco today, head of cassini imaging at ciclops.org. she'll probably never reply. but at least she has my observational opinions: <br /><br />carolyn porco,<br /><br />upon looking at the bizarre and beautiful moon Hyperion recently, it has come to my attention that the 'cratering' appears to have<br />very distinct features quite unlike typical forms that one would assume to be of an impact origin: perfect, and nearly perfect, hexagonal<br />shapes. furthermore, the large area that has been removed, apparently eons ago, reveals that these shapes are at the end of what appears to be crystal-like shafts (or "rays" as is cited on the jpl.nasa site) that extend, radially, to the center of the body. in this way, the moon resembles a giant beehive, more or less.<br /><br />indeed, many of the hexagonal shapes have been distorted over time, but upon closer observation, it appears that many, alarmingly many, of these<br />craters are geometric in construction. therefore, what process could have possibly constructed such an object? or rendered geometric impact craters?hyperion in no way resembles a "moon."<br /><br />-bonzelite

 

[bonzelite]

najaB -"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 />it isn't any weaker than tectonic or ring collision/deposit theories. all are unprovable. they're ALL theoretical. to me, the most ridiculous theory is the ring deposit one. it's trying to claw at thin ice to shoehorn some science into a box. <br /><br />tectonic makes the most pre-existing accepted scientific sense. although i find that highly unlikely as well. the structure is too perfect. with perfect linear, lateral, features atop it. and the whole moon is geometric in shape. <br /><br />who knows how it got that way.

 

[vogon13]

IMO, the biggest impediment to the theory the ETs built the Iapetan equatorial ridge is :<br /><br />Where is the quarry where all the material came from to build the ramp?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[telfrow]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <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]

Where is the missing radar telemetry?

 

[bonzelite]

well. then you'd have to ask where the quarry for the entire moon is. <br /><br />iapetus is not spherical. it is a polyhedron. <br /><br />believe me, i have no idea how in hel!L it was created. <br />

 

[vogon13]

Assuming ring extends 2000 km above surface of Iapetus, area works out to something around 20,000,000 square kilometers. Assuming average width at base of ridge to be 20 kilometers, and average height to be 10 kilometers,and length (just to keep it easy) is a 1000 kilometers, the volume works out to be 10,000 cubic kilometers.<br /><br />Divy it out, (I will assume ring is particles occupying 10% of available space in ring) and thickness of ring works out at 50 meters.<br /><br />Even if I dropped a zero either way, 5 or 500 meters, Cassini pictures on hand now do not resolve that level of detail anyhow, so your comment about delicate features is unsubstantiated. Additionally, the mechanism postulated for the formation of randomly orbiting particles into a ring system, (referred to in the other Iapetus thread as the collapse to the Laplacian plane) is well capable of generating such a nearly 2 dimensional structure as the ring system under discussion. Particularly in the case of Iapetus, remote from the gravitional influences of other objects as it is. And with the further example of Saturn's ring system with its amazing ratio of diameter to thickness while approximating a planar surface to high accuracy.<br /><br />Subsequent settling of such a feature in the 2 1/2 % earth gravity equivalent of Iapetus is expected to be minor as due to the ridgidity of the crust and materials of the ridge at the minus ~300 degree ambient temperatures there. Ever see the footage of Mr. Wizard hammering a nail into a board with a banana frozen in liquid nitrogen?<br /><br />Additionally, the feature is scarcely pristine, subsequent impacts have pocked it and in a few places, sundered it.<br /><br /><br /><br />Other than those points, you seem to have a fair understanding of the feature.<br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[bonzelite]

your points well made not withstanding, the linear ridges that run nearly the entire length of the structure are, for being ancient features bombarded over the aeons, extremely organised and consistent, practically architectural in appearance with relatively abrupt edges. it just raises eternal mystery for me.<br /><br />i mean, i am considering what you are saying. many have proposed such a process as a collision with ring material. and it can be made a viable premise. <br /><br />it is the other things, in addition to the equatorial great wall, that defy explanation and shy me away from the ring argument. there are too many bizarrely geometric forms and criss-crossing, organised and linear surface features, non-spherical limb views, myriad geometric, hexagonal, repeated patterns, that turn me away from a saturnian ring system cataclysm. <br /><br />as well, for an event to leave the residual material literally perfectly on the equator of iapetus, with distinct and geometric relief elements, creates disbelief in traditional mechanical explanations (even if such more mundane processes are accountable). <br /><br />an analysis of the great wall's material as compared to saturnian ring material may lend greater credence to the argument for a near encounter (unless the entire moon is comprised of ring material, which can open the door again to discuss the quarry for the wall and the entire moon: saturn's rings [provided the rings pre-existed iapetus]).

 

[vogon13]

Sadly, many have interpreted obvious data compression artifacts in the pictures as indicative of ET.<br /><br />Even more ironic, one of the most interesting craters in the solar system, the possible source crater for the ring material, is almost totally neglected.<br /><br />Examine the 'bite out of the apple' crater in the '6-pack' image set in the other Iapetus thread.<br />Fascinating possibility.<br /><br /> <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Where is the missing radar telemetry?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why do you and others keep asking us? Nobody here is on the Cassini team. Ask JPL if you really care enough and are honest enough to risk the possibility that it doesn't support your theory. (BTW, be prepared for disappointment. The distance was too great for the radar to be especially useful.) <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>

 

[bonzelite]

many data compression artifacts, too, have been skewed to be "signs" of technology debris on mars, for example. i find a lot of that far-fetched. and really, i have never been a pro-e.t. fanatic. the chances of e.t. are so remotely detectable, if ever. <br /><br />however, forever curious, i never rule out that it may exist. or may have existed. the whole iapetus thing is changing my mind. whereas before i was highly skeptical, and still think most UFO believers are whacko geeks who need to get a life, today, with the findings at saturn, i am beginning to warm up to the idea and join the geek squad --sort of.<br /><br />if signs of e.t. are going to be found, then what better place than in our own system? maybe humankind exists because of local and ancient intelligence off the planet. who knows? <br /><br />if you have not already read the stuff on this site, here is the link:<br /><br />http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm<br /><br />it is several pages long, but a very fun and compelling read. it does mention the missing radar telemetry, by the way. <br /><br />

 

[vogon13]

Congratulations! You are the one millionth poster to put in a link to the Hoaglanditic webstravaganza.<br /><br />Think the mods have been deleting them as of late.......<br /><br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[jatslo]

"Why do you and others keep asking us?"<br /><br />Because I thought there are NASA folks on these boards.

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Congratulations! You are the one millionth poster to put in a link to the Hoaglanditic webstravaganza.</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <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>

 

[bonzelite]

<br />"Congratulations! You are the one millionth poster to put in a link to the Hoaglanditic webstravaganza. <br /><br />Think the mods have been deleting them as of late..."<br /><br />then disregard the post. why do you care? <br /><br />the mods should also delete all posts that relate to new "proven" black hole sightings! or anything reported that bases it's findings on assuming the big bang happened --all of those are lumped into junk-science, too, just as the iapetus stuff is thought to be. <br /><br />in fact, the government should just ban this entire web site. most of it is speculative crap. <br />