|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
saturns bloody hexagon
#15199503 - 10/09/11 09:33 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
ok so the hexagon has been known to be up there for 5 years now (over 20 if you consider the first sighting). For whatever reason, ive never seen this reported on the news or anywhere on television. I have only seen it reported on the internet. For some reason I have also seen plenty of people say 'oh its just a wave interference pattern, check out cymatics!' Ive also found websites like this: http://news.discovery.com/space/saturns-north-pole-hexagon-mystery-solved.html which claim to have 'solved' the mystery on Saturn.
what a load of crock!
imagine if someone told you they understood how hurricanes and tornadoes occur because they pulled the plug from their bathtub?
So I am wondering what you guys think. Are you persuaded by the spinning bucket research into cymatics? Are you persuaded by bizarre claims of alien or otherwise conscious influence? Are you in a state of apathy about the matter? Are you, like me, incredibly frustrated that things like this exist yet are barely spoken about and are given piss-weak 'explanations' then forgotten about?
--------------------

|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15199859 - 10/09/11 11:15 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Given the resources, or lack thereof, invested in this phenomenon it seems reasonable to me that eddies create the hexagonal shape... also it's the simplest explanation so far.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 12 hours, 5 minutes
|
|
weird
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: imachavel]
#15200487 - 10/09/11 01:34 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
why accept an explanation just because it is simple? why not settle with no explanation, if no explanation is really good enough? The images dont actually show eddie currents and so I find it quite hard to believe.
of course it is possible but it could also represent some other sort of stablisation based on another mathematical relationship that yields hexagons, or maybe aliens
--------------------

|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15200605 - 10/09/11 01:59 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The mathematical relationship is clearly superior to aliens because it stems from simple assumptions that describe whole hosts of disparate phenomenon also it has measurable descriptive and predictive ability.
Why you mad? You dont wanna talk to no scientists, them fuckers lying and getting you pissed?
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15202000 - 10/09/11 06:52 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
which claim to have 'solved' the mystery on Saturn.
what a load of crock!
imagine if someone told you they understood how hurricanes and tornadoes occur because they pulled the plug from their bathtub?
More percisely, they claim someone else has solved the mystery, and yet, that's not quite accurate. (really, I don't know if its fair to claim the article makes such a claim, but I'll adopt your interpretation, arguendo)
Its generally a bad idea to try and understand the results of experiments and the interpretations thereof from popsci or news websites. They are notoriously wrong nearly all the time about some matter or other. Often they overstate the case, neglect caveats, and advance hypotheticals as known phenomena.
This is the case here.
As you would expect, someone playing in their bathtub cannot "solve" the matter of the hurricane's mechanism, but they can show that the observations made of hurricanes are consistant with rather mundane natural phenomena. This is helpful, and this is what occured in the case here.
Rather than claiming to have solved the matter of the hexagon, the paper's authors claim to have demonstrated a mechanism which produces the observations from known interactions in the system. This is how science generally works: someone proposes an explanation and then that explanation is tested and excluded or supported. Over time the more useful models prevail, and we better understand our world.
It seems you may have fallen into the trap alot of science critics sometimes do, and that's presuming popsci/news writers have accurately represented the study's results.
Quote:
Noteworthy said: why accept an explanation just because it is simple? why not settle with no explanation, if no explanation is really good enough?
When does science ever settle on an explanation? The idea is anathema to the whole idea of science.
Science is never able to determine what is fundamentally occuring. All it can do, and all we can expect, is to develop useful models of our world which allow us to make predictions and understand the relationships between various processes.
As for why 'simple' things are accepted, generally the preference is on using known phenomena to explain things rather than unknown phenomena. Rather than a preference for simplicity, this is a preference for not making shit up, like aliens or whatever. Occam's Razor is generally a good heuristic.
|
Heruuka
member

Registered: 10/15/99
Posts: 333
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: johnm214]
#15202935 - 10/09/11 10:30 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
shame- I was really hopin for 'aliens' to be the right answer. Fluid dynamics takes the fun out of everything.
well at least I have the image of what can only be described as a 'pussy-toaster' in the grain of the wood on my kitchen cabinet. That's definitely a sign from aliens to make a pussy-toaster that you can push the lever down on in the morning and have your way with, whilst drinking your coffee... all nice and toasty. Something like that can't possibly just be there.
...now for the prototype I will need one antique toaster and a rubber vagina...
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Heruuka]
#15203681 - 10/10/11 02:14 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
those fuckin popscience writers represent science, though, and are the source for most people's views on science. So it also frustrates me when i get told that science is actually much more than that. This is because the role of science in society is not the same as the mission statement of scientists. Although scientists might believe they are doing something, their role in society is modulated by the way that the information reaches people and affects their beliefs. This role is similar to the role of a religion - it creates a world view and seperates people from other world views.
People think science gives them the right to say that intelligent design is bogus, for example, when actually it just says that the bible story is bogus. This leads a lot of people to join groups like atheist evolutionary text-book-bashers which treat popular theories as if they are the truth which should be reconned with. This creates further social divisions which science itself does not support but which are justified via reference to science.
In the context of this thread, the hexagon on saturn is a powerful reminder that the universe is bizarre and unexplained, but as soon as simple ideas like fluid dynamics are mentioned as having a possible role to play, people are given an 'excuse' to ignore this bizarre phenomenon and continue acting like science is their answer to the universe (when it is not an answer but a method that entails many widely different possibilities while refuting many other possibilities) which might otherwise humble them. This just increases the chance of social seperation and premature judgement of views.
fuckin popscience writers
yall motherfucking lying and gettin me pissed
--------------------

|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15204800 - 10/10/11 11:03 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15204875 - 10/10/11 11:19 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said: why accept an explanation just because it is simple?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Assuming that it _does_ explain the phenomenon in question.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: koraks]
#15205069 - 10/10/11 12:01 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
if you dont know what all the alternatives are, how do you know that your best explanation is really the simplest?
--------------------

|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15205093 - 10/10/11 12:05 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said: if you dont know what all the alternatives are, how do you know that your best explanation is really the simplest?
You never know all the alternatives. There's inherent certainty to everything in life. Other than that: I don't think Occam's Razor is the answer to everything, and certainly, sometimes the best fitting explanation actually isn't so simple at all. But I do think that theories are preferred that explain a phenomenon based on known principles as opposed to ones that need to conjure up as of yet unknown beings and phenomena whose existence is only proven in the minds of the mentally disturbed. So I'd definitely prefer eddies over aliens.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: koraks]
#15207757 - 10/10/11 10:23 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
and id prefer a large scale quantum superposition, so what? occams razor has its place - usually in practical situations for deciding plans of actions. It is better to bet on less than to bet on more. But when it comes to understanding the universe... the razor doesnt seem to have as much importance
--------------------

|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15208339 - 10/11/11 04:45 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> But when it comes to understanding the universe... the razor doesnt seem to have as much importance
Not really true. I don't like using Occam's Razor (in debate), not because it is flawed, but because most people misuse it or don't understand its limitations. Contrary to popular belief, it does not mean "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". Instead, it means "when you have two choices, and all else is equal, go with the choice that has the fewest assumptions". In science, for things like understanding the universe, Occam's Razor helps guide the direction of research, theories, and models. It does not, (again) contrary to popular belief, dictate a result.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,729
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Seuss]
#15208359 - 10/11/11 05:06 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly. Also, it is important to note that I posted this only quasi-seriously. Realize very well the context in which Occam's Razor was proposed as a concept to guide 'scientific' advancement: it was a deeply religious context, and Ockham applied his razor (which he never formulated as such, but that's another story) in perfecting an essentially theist world view. Since biblical texts were the basis for that world view, the existing body of 'theory' was constructed around an existence of God. Applying the Razor in that context, it stands to reason that given to alternative theories, e.g. one a theist theory and the other one based on modern science, the theist theory would be preferable as it aligns better with the existing (theist) context. Hence, Occam's Razor is rather sensitive to what you may call path dependency or even groupthink. Or, in other words: in itself, it will not necessarily guide towards a better understanding of reality; it can only do so if the rest of the scientific context in which it is applied is geared towards producing and validating theory in a reliable manner.
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15208372 - 10/11/11 05:19 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said: why accept an explanation just because it is simple?
Fundamental principle of logic known as Occam's Razor. Not always right, but generally so, often enough to be valid.
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Doc_T]
#15208450 - 10/11/11 06:28 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> Fundamental principle of logic known as Occam's Razor.
You might want to read the previous two posts. Again, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with the "simple explanation" being correct.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile


Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Seuss]
#15209692 - 10/11/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc_T said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said: why accept an explanation just because it is simple?
Fundamental principle of logic known as Occam's Razor. Not always right, but generally so, often enough to be valid.
often enough to be useful. validity is a logical matter. Assumedly, both options being looked at are equally valid, or else there is no need to apply occams razor.
Quote:
Seuss said: > But when it comes to understanding the universe... the razor doesnt seem to have as much importance
Not really true. I don't like using Occam's Razor (in debate), not because it is flawed, but because most people misuse it or don't understand its limitations. Contrary to popular belief, it does not mean "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". Instead, it means "when you have two choices, and all else is equal, go with the choice that has the fewest assumptions". In science, for things like understanding the universe, Occam's Razor helps guide the direction of research, theories, and models. It does not, (again) contrary to popular belief, dictate a result.
so basically you just agreed with what i said, that occams razor is a matter of pragmatic decision making rather than a matter of having greater understanding...
--------------------

|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: saturns bloody hexagon [Re: Noteworthy]
#15209933 - 10/11/11 01:38 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yea, but isn't good decision making what leads to a greater understanding?
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
Heruuka
member

Registered: 10/15/99
Posts: 333
|
|
I really just don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that scientists have a responsibility to add a disclaimer to their discoveries like "this finding only represents the results of our research and only provides a possible explanation for [x], which will likely change as more research is conducted"? Is that what's frustrating? or is it the way the media exploit research to make snappy headlines, betraying the actual science?
Also- intelligent design is anti-science. Why? because it is unscientific to propose a scenario that has no evidence to back it up. There is NO evidence of a creator or God, therefore it would be unscientific to suggest that one exists. You can believe whatever you want, but belief isn't science.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the general public is that science IS like a religion. It is just observations and discoveries and theory based on those observations. By definition it has no agenda and is unbiased. It isn't even a thing, its just a word for our collected body of objective knowledge. I can't really understand why people personify it, like there's some kinda organization or something.
|
|