Saturn's moon Iapetus is one of the stranger objects in our Solar System. Unlike other objects its size, Iapetus is walnut-shaped, with a clearly defined chain of mountains along its equator. How could it have formed billions of years ago with the rest of the Solar System, and yet still have its unique shape?
New NASA supported researchers have developed a computer model that seems to accurately explain the series of events that Iapetus went through to arrive at its current shape.
Remember Richard Hoagland's "Death Star" theory?
6 comments:
While Hoagland's "DeathStar Theory" was a good laugh, I still don't trust NASA as far as I can throw them.
Did Lapetus evolve as some models have shown? Maybe. Does NASA continue to obscure evidence of standing surface water, potential surface organics and artificial structures on Mars?..cough.
It is a touch difficult to accept anything that NASA says as gospel when they have such a propaganda plagued track record on important issues.
Remember Richard Hoagland's "Death Star" theory?
One of his better efforts, I always thought. And consider this logic. Just because Richard Hoadland believes that Iapetus is artificial does not, ipso facto, mean that it ISN'T.
--WMB as Anon
(I STILL think that that equatorial ridge is a buried maglev railgun launcher! ;-)
--WMB as Anon
And here's why Nasa's wee theory massively misses:
1-A computer simulation does not stand as proof, only as a possible model, period. But you know, computer's are infallible.
2: Said simulation does not account for the three ridges that are there, easily seen in Nasa's own shots. Said three ridges being quite mathematically constant, both around the equator, and the distance of the ridges from each other. A fast spin will be highly unlikely to raise three ridges, let alone one-why? Fast rotation means vastly higher gravity. Plus fails to xplain the possible physical forces involved in the creation of the ridges.
3: The simulation also does not at all explain Iapetus' polygonal nature, shared by no other planet in the solar system-that being iapetus having sides, not a round surface-meaning that the higher gravity, from rapid rotation, would contradict the formation of geometric, polygonal sides visible on the edges of the planet, in Nasa's own photos. A self contradicting theory just doesn't work.
Good point on the polygonal observation Anon and yes that is quite contradictory to NASA's theory. You can criticize Hoagland for many things but he does have a terrific eye for obvious geometric oddities and Lapetus' certainly has them in spades.
Denny
I like Hoagland's idea as well. I don't think it's the most plausible explanation, but it's worth a look.
Post a Comment