btimsah said:
Ok, so here's a polygonal structure. Firstly, do you know what it is, and how it came to exist?
Is it man made? Made by ETs?
Mining Operations
- Thread starter FieryIce
- Start date
Ok, so here's a polygonal structure. Firstly, do you know what it is, and how it came to exist?
Is it man made? Made by ETs?
phlogistician said:Ok, so here's a polygonal structure. Firstly, do you know what it is, and how it came to exist?
Is it man made? Made by ETs?
No, I have no idea what that is. I would assume it's natural so you could use that to conclude, "naturally made things can look artificially made".
Just because such a formation can be created naturally, it does not mean it was not created by intelligence. You'd have to take each structure and try too get high-res images of them and account for the type of event it would take for it to be made naturally. If you can't account for it, then perhaps it was made by intelligence.
:m:
FieryIce said:
PIA07003: Iapetus Surface Composition
The image at left shows the reflectance at 4-microns, which is dominated by the minerals on Iapetus' surface. Two large craters are seen in this image. The polar water ice is relatively dark at this wavelength, so the ice cap is not seen. The next frame shows carbon dioxide on the surface. The carbon dioxide peaks at mid latitudes and shows less strength at the pole and along the equator (the dark band curving near the left edge of the image). The third frame shows the strength of water absorption on Iapetus. The brightest regions are due to water ice near the pole. The grayer areas indicate water bound to minerals on the surface. The color composite shows water as blue, carbon dioxide as green, and non-ice minerals as red.
Iapetus is not all just ice.
The geodesics that Hoagland demonstrates about Iapetus, he does have a point.
AKA Heathen
Registered Senior Member
FieryIce wrote:
“Iapetus is not all just ice.”
Ayup. This is true. Which is why I wrote:
‘Virtually no metals and very few silicates and a whole lot of ice.’
There is no possible way to misinterpret my statement as implying that Iapetus is composed of ‘all just ice’. Nor have I (or anyone else) implied that only water ice makes up Iapetus; ices with lessor densities (than water ice) are also present.
Come along Miss Gale. We’ll take this a step at a time. Let’s start with the densities of the major ingredients of the solid bodies in our solar system:
“Iron, with a density of 7.87 grams per cubic centimeter ( g/cm3),
Basalt, with a density of 3.3 g/cm3,
Water, with a density of 1 g/cm3, and
Cold ices (such as frozen carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia) and hydrogen, with densities ranging from 0.07-0.09 g/cm3.”
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/planets/planetary_geology/density.ssi
Now examine the graph from the page I linked to. Or, if you prefer, this one:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/pgifs/Planetdensity.GIF
Objects with really useful resources (like metals or silicates) have mean densities 3 to 5 times as dense as Iapetus.
In the event that your fictional ‘resource harvesters’ wanted ices (perhaps as fuel) in the vicinity of Saturn, there are dozens if not hundreds of much smaller objects from which ‘they’ could extract these ices much more efficiently and economically.
Check this out. While examining a few of Hoagland’s sites, I found this:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Tides/tides-density2.jpg
I imagine Hoagland would claim this means some objects are hollow. H’yah mule.
If we were to place Iapetus on that graph it would go to the left of Callisto, making it even less dense than most ‘icy satellites’. Would it kill you to admit that Iapetus makes a lousy choice for ‘resource harvesting’?
FieryIce wrote:
“The geodesics that Hoagland demonstrates about Iapetus, he does have a point.”
As to any point he may have, a chapeau might remedy that situation.
Hoagland demonstrated nothing beyond drawing lines on a long-exposure photo. Iapetus is not an ideal sphere. OK, I got that. You don’t get to play two sides of the same fence at the same time.
Which is it? Resource harvesting or a derelict ‘battlestar’ abandoned by fallen angels?
“Iapetus is not all just ice.”
Ayup. This is true. Which is why I wrote:
‘Virtually no metals and very few silicates and a whole lot of ice.’
There is no possible way to misinterpret my statement as implying that Iapetus is composed of ‘all just ice’. Nor have I (or anyone else) implied that only water ice makes up Iapetus; ices with lessor densities (than water ice) are also present.
Come along Miss Gale. We’ll take this a step at a time. Let’s start with the densities of the major ingredients of the solid bodies in our solar system:
“Iron, with a density of 7.87 grams per cubic centimeter ( g/cm3),
Basalt, with a density of 3.3 g/cm3,
Water, with a density of 1 g/cm3, and
Cold ices (such as frozen carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia) and hydrogen, with densities ranging from 0.07-0.09 g/cm3.”
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/planets/planetary_geology/density.ssi
Now examine the graph from the page I linked to. Or, if you prefer, this one:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/pgifs/Planetdensity.GIF
Objects with really useful resources (like metals or silicates) have mean densities 3 to 5 times as dense as Iapetus.
In the event that your fictional ‘resource harvesters’ wanted ices (perhaps as fuel) in the vicinity of Saturn, there are dozens if not hundreds of much smaller objects from which ‘they’ could extract these ices much more efficiently and economically.
Check this out. While examining a few of Hoagland’s sites, I found this:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Tides/tides-density2.jpg
I imagine Hoagland would claim this means some objects are hollow. H’yah mule.
If we were to place Iapetus on that graph it would go to the left of Callisto, making it even less dense than most ‘icy satellites’. Would it kill you to admit that Iapetus makes a lousy choice for ‘resource harvesting’?
FieryIce wrote:
“The geodesics that Hoagland demonstrates about Iapetus, he does have a point.”
As to any point he may have, a chapeau might remedy that situation.
Hoagland demonstrated nothing beyond drawing lines on a long-exposure photo. Iapetus is not an ideal sphere. OK, I got that. You don’t get to play two sides of the same fence at the same time.
Which is it? Resource harvesting or a derelict ‘battlestar’ abandoned by fallen angels?
AkaHeathen
The interesting thing about my statement of resource harvesting it was dated 01-13-05, 08:44 AM, I am not abandoning that theory but the geodesic examination is far more probable. Even as you stated:
lends itself to the more probable theory like Hoagland's.
The interesting thing about my statement of resource harvesting it was dated 01-13-05, 08:44 AM, I am not abandoning that theory but the geodesic examination is far more probable. Even as you stated:
lends itself to the more probable theory like Hoagland's.
AKA Heathen
Registered Senior Member
FieryIce wrote:
“I am not abandoning that theory but the geodesic examination is far more probable.”
First off, neither you nor Hoagland have anything substantial enough to qualify as a theory. Mere suggestions, nothing more.
And I was not stating an opinion when I wrote ‘You don’t get to play two sides of the same fence at the same time.’ Iapetus really can not be both a natural object to be mined and an artifact constructed by fallen angels at the same time. One or the other, you really do have to fish or cut bait and make a decision. Natural or artificial, which is it?
“I am not abandoning that theory but the geodesic examination is far more probable.”
First off, neither you nor Hoagland have anything substantial enough to qualify as a theory. Mere suggestions, nothing more.
And I was not stating an opinion when I wrote ‘You don’t get to play two sides of the same fence at the same time.’ Iapetus really can not be both a natural object to be mined and an artifact constructed by fallen angels at the same time. One or the other, you really do have to fish or cut bait and make a decision. Natural or artificial, which is it?
Slightly off-topic, but somewhat related:
I was in a book store today and noted two copies of one of Hoagland's books in the "Science-Astronomy" section. I promptly scooped them both up and dropped them off in the New Age section where they'll more easily fit in. In fact, I stuck them right next to Graham Hancock's, Fingerprints of the Gods, which I dropped off there almost a year ago in the same store from the "Anthropology-Archaeology" section!
I was in a book store today and noted two copies of one of Hoagland's books in the "Science-Astronomy" section. I promptly scooped them both up and dropped them off in the New Age section where they'll more easily fit in. In fact, I stuck them right next to Graham Hancock's, Fingerprints of the Gods, which I dropped off there almost a year ago in the same store from the "Anthropology-Archaeology" section!
Kind of like me picking up many of the books of "science" and puting them under "sciencefiction"
FOCLMAO
FOCLMAO
Which ones, precisely? Just out of curiosity. Btw, noted your post on ducks... cool.
I think Hoagland, couldbe making perfect sense, but nobody will read the entire 5 page report on Iapetus.
I thought he was full of it, untill I actually started reading the thing. Now I dont know if he's right but as you guys know about me - I'm not afraid of speculation.
I thought he was full of it, untill I actually started reading the thing. Now I dont know if he's right but as you guys know about me - I'm not afraid of speculation.
One part I was interested in was the fact that Iapetus should be a sphere. The point being that it's gravity should smoosh it into a perfect sphere? I guess I understand that correctly. Someone did note that there are some degradations on the ridge, places where you can see what looks like craters were formed since the ridge was made. In fact, there's the VERY large crater at the ridges end. I was thinking that perhaps the ridge extended further around but that they giant impact crater destroyed it?
Dunno, but it's a cool li'l Moon.
Dunno, but it's a cool li'l Moon.
Well, lets just say that Dr. David Darling and Phil Plaitt (Bad Astronomer) would be at the top of that list.
Any one note the CS types of crater chains along that "mountain range"?
Any one note the CS types of crater chains along that "mountain range"?
I generally remove anything written by a member of psi cop and place it either in the porn or the History of Science section. If they have a section about domestic intelligence operations, I put them there. I appreciate SkinWalker's placing Hoagland's book where it belongs. Why, He knows where he can stick it, and how many can look you straight in the eye and admit that!
Well, Norval, I really can't blame you for moving Phil Plaitt's book after he banned you from his forum. I'm not a real big fan of forums that ban those that are outspoken and critical, even if it is pseudoscience, unless they are vulgar or threaten the board in some way (like posting Warez links, etc.). I got the impression you just pissed him off and that didn't warrant a banning. But... it is his board...
You know, dropping books off in the sci fi and porn sections will probably only boost their exposure! I imagine the porn browser thinking, "hmm... let's see... Breast Monthly, Hustler, Butts and Blondes, Skeptical Inquirer.... hey! That's Bigfoot on the cover *turns to centerfold.
You know, dropping books off in the sci fi and porn sections will probably only boost their exposure! I imagine the porn browser thinking, "hmm... let's see... Breast Monthly, Hustler, Butts and Blondes, Skeptical Inquirer.... hey! That's Bigfoot on the cover *turns to centerfold.
craterchains (Norval said:
Norv, you can't tell the difference between 'science' and 'science fiction' so how do you accomplish this?
Nope, guess nobody noticed the CS types of crater chains along that "mountain range".
The Bad Astronomer stated that FieryIce was my sock puppet and banned Gale and I.
Now that really impressed me with his intelligence. NOT ! ! FOCLMFAO
Then there are those that can't tell the difference between speculation and pseudo science,,, hmmmmmmmmmm
The Bad Astronomer stated that FieryIce was my sock puppet and banned Gale and I.
Now that really impressed me with his intelligence. NOT ! ! FOCLMFAO
Then there are those that can't tell the difference between speculation and pseudo science,,, hmmmmmmmmmm
Last edited: