C
CalliArcale
Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To say they are surface features is likewise unsubstantiated.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, the alternative would be atmospheric features, and they're awfully static for those. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The only comparable example I can think of is the Great Red Spot, and even that changes dramatically over time. So far, the raw images are pretty consistent with past imagery, both from Cassini itself earlier this year and from both Hubble and ground-based observatories. <br /><br />It's a very good bet that they're surface features. What they actually *are*, however, is anybody's guess right now. Of course, that just makes it all that much more fun. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>