Possible Clue On Saturn's Hexagon?

permaculture sends us to nature.com for a description of new (and old) research that might possibly shed some light on the origin of the hexagon around Saturn's north pole. Researchers at the Technical University of Denmark have spun buckets of water, in much the same way Isaac Newton did, and photographed geometrical whirlpools developing. As the buckets are spun up, central holes develop that are first elliptical, then triangular, then square, pentagonal, and hexagonal. A UT Austin researcher is quoted as saying it's unlikely this process is behind the Saturn mystery.

Intelligent Design

[Palmyst (1065142)]

Slam dunk. Don't even try to refute it.

Re:

[Mattintosh (758112)]

Intelligent Design has its merits, but this doesn't even fall into the same category. This is more of an implementation detail. And while the design might be intelligent, the ongoing implementation is surely governed by a ruleset long-since finalized.

That's the one fact that most ID-ists and Evolutionists both miss, and it applies in nearly every argument they have. The problem is, it forces them both to STFU if they accept that fact, and when you have an agenda to push, STFU-ing is the last thing you want

Re:Intelligent Design

[Johnny5000 (451029)]

Intelligent Design has its merits

No, actually.. it really doesn't.
Not scientific merits, anyway.

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Can you explain why ongoing implementation following a fixed ruleset makes evolutionists STFU? Evolution would be such a ruleset, wouldn't it?

The usual ID proponent isn't actually arguing for intelligent design, they're arguing for intelligent-design-and-subsequent-stagnation. It's just the old universe is static vs. universe is changing argument again.

Re:

[Skreems (598317)]

Can you explain why ongoing implementation following a fixed ruleset makes evolutionists STFU? Evolution would be such a ruleset, wouldn't it?

No. Intelligent Design specifically claims that random chance, even guided by a logical ruleset such as evolution, is not sufficient to produce the complexity found in low-level structural pieces of biological systems.

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Good point. But that doesn't explain what makes evolutionists STFU.

Re:

[Skreems (598317)]

Either they're assuming that the person making such a foolish argument is aware that it's foolish, or else they've concluded that they don't even understand the theory they're supporting (ID), and don't want to waste their time with them. Either way, it's the person raising the question who has failed, not the one they're confronting.

Re:

[maraist (68387)]

Not being terribly savy with ID (I don't like butt sex either), but of course ID is self contradictory.. It merely replaces the 'randomness' of synthesis with the randomness of the whim of a pre-existing synthetic. How can someone/thing evoke free will to 'Design' without randomness? How random would it be that they create a contradictory historical dialog, utilize separation of scholars from the flock, allow people to learn contradictory things such as Jews are the chosen people, yet Germans will be amon

Re:

[Mattintosh (758112)]

Usually people notice the difference between "design" and "implementation" and realize that ID is design (duh) and evolution is implementation, thus the whole argument is moot and they STFU.

At least one would hope so, since everyone that doesn't participate in the pissing contest is really sick of hearing about it.

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

I don't see that putting new labels on the two sides would cause either to stop arguing, but maybe. It's a good way of explaining it to non-passionately involved observers though.

and that would be??

[nanosquid (1074949)]

ntelligent Design has its merits,

Hold on, let me think... nope, can't think of any.

Re:

[asninn (1071320)]

That's the one fact that most ID-ists and Evolutionists both miss, and it applies in nearly every argument they have. The problem is, it forces them both to STFU if they accept that fact, and when you have an agenda to push, STFU-ing is the last thing you want to do.

I fail to see how would force any actual scientist[1] to STFU, to be honest. If the "rules" were long since finalised, then it would still make sense to explore what the rules actually are, and there'd be no a priori reason at all why somet

Re:

[esobofh (138133)]

That's ten time more funny if you read it in the voice of Stephen Colbert.

Re:Intelligent Design

[jdray (645332)]

Well, while the article seems to have a clue what they're talking about, you certainly don't. Intelligent design really is a bunch of lazy researchers...

Your argument a) misses the joke, and b) holds water less than the parent. Clues must be in short supply, as you indicated.

Settlers of Catan

[by Anonymous Coward]

The gods are slowly starting to build a Settlers of Catan [wikipedia.org] board. Expect to see prices of wool & brick skyrocket here on earth.

Re:Settlers of Catan

[Drey (1420)]

Obligatory Settler's Joke: "I have wood for sheep."

Re:

[Wolfger (96957)]

I want to go sailing. Bring me a sheep on a stick!

Re:

[fructose (948996)]

Good thing I have a wheat port.

Re:

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

I guess you missed it when they released Starfarers of Catan...(Excellent game, btw).

Short Explaination?

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Black monolith.

cue Ligeti's "Atmospheres"...

Re:

[ColdGrits (204506)]

Indeed, although just the final track "Echoes" which does work exceedingly well when started as "Beyond The infinite" starts when he goes to investigate the black monolith at Jupiter.

HOWEVER, did you know that although the film has the monolith at Jupiter (due to sfx limitations at the time), the original storyline and the novel both have the monolith at SATURN.

See, it all falls into place now...

First time around...

[Dan East (318230)]

This was brought to light [slashdot.org] the first time around.

Dan East

Re:

[brunascle (994197)]

and the nature article is from may 2006.

Re:First time around...

[Rei (128717)]

Well... they may not be directly related, but it is a demonstration of the fact that geometric shapes with relatively straight sides can be formed in a moving fluid. Even if the mechanism is different, it's a nice demonstration that the concept isn't far fetched.

Slow news day...

[Floritard (1058660)]

The whirlpools theory was actually linked to in the comments for the original article on slashdot about a month ago. I guess one way to get new stories is to harvest from the comments on old stories.

I've got it

[quokkapox (847798)]

That's where the bees have gone. They've flown to Saturn and are constructing a gigantic honeycomb.

Re:I've got it

[Emperor Zombie (1082033)]

Honeycomb's big, Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Re:

[K'Lyre (600056)]

It's not small. No, no no.

Re:I've got it

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Cool. I always wondered where the Honeycomb Hideout was.

Good news, everyone!

[swid27 (869237)]

Once again, life imitates Futurama. [wikipedia.org]

Two Minor Things

[user24 (854467)]

firstly, I think this is the first time I've seen a slashdot article refute itself in the summary " Possible Clue On Saturn's Hexagon? ... A UT Austin researcher is quoted as saying it's unlikely this process is behind the Saturn mystery".

secondly, are we even sure there is a hexagon? The face on mars was just a freak of low-resolution photography, couldn't the same sort of human error be responsible here?

Re:

[poopdeville (841677)]

The face on mars was just a freak of low-resolution photography, couldn't the same sort of human error be responsible here?

No. The hexagon is huge. See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimed ia/pia09185.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Two Minor Things

[jfengel (409917)]

The face on Mars was really more a trick of the shadows, exacerbated by the low resolution photography. This is on the relatively smooth surface of Saturn, without shadows. This is also a rather simple shape, unlike a face, which we have special circuitry in our brains to recognize (like the face of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.)

We have much higher resolution pictures of this phenomenon relative to its scale. It could be a lot of things, including mere coincidence, though it seems more likely to be real. Unlike a face, which would have required a civilization (or wild coincidence) to create, there's reason to believe that there is a physical mechanism. It just may or may not be the one suggested in the article (though I'm willing to bet it's at least distantly related).

Dept of Redundancy dept.

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

Wow, he's almost as brilliant as the dozen or more people that posted that exact same reference in http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/2 7/203205 [slashdot.org] THIS story.

Note to /. editors: perhaps you should read your stories and their comments?

Its a giant carbon structure

[1_brown_mouse (160511)]

The whole hexagon thing was a dead give away.

Diamonds a big as a cadillac!

Arthur C. Clarke was a Genius to have predicted this!

Benard cells?

[uab21 (951482)]

The Saturn thing Looks like a Benard cell... although they are normally seen in thin layers, not 100km deep regions - I guess 'thin' could be subjective - don't know how far across that feature is. A high thermal diffusivity or kinematic viscosity would compensate for that (look up Rayleigh number for why).

Benard cells form in a horizontal layer of fluid with warmer fluid below cooler fluid. The instability can be seen in different shapes dependent on the wave number of the most excited mode. The hexagonal cell solution was found by Christopherson (1940) 'Note on the Vibration of Membranes' - Quarterly J of Mathematics 11, 63-5, but many others exist.

Re:

[treeves (963993)]

I mentioned that the first time this story came up on /. but thinking about it more later, Benard cells form in non-rotating fluids. Wouldn't the rotation interfere with the Benard cell formation process?

Re:

[uab21 (951482)]

Wouldn't the rotation interfere with the Benard cell formation process?

Yes. The classical derivation for Bernard cells assumes a rigid/rigid or rigid/free boundary condition. I was just assuming that there could be some interaction between the rotational period and wavenumber / horizontal wavelength (which could also explain the lack of additional cells mentioned by Goway in another reply - the cells are collapsed onto each other by the rotation. Is this truly possible? Dunno - haven't even done the

Re:Benard cells?

[Goaway (82658)]

Bernard cells are Bernard cells. They don't appear on their own, and their shape is caused by the fact that there are many of them.

Yes

[arazor (55656)]

But is it a raging clue?

haven't read article

[SnarfQuest (469614)]

Was the clue the giant wrench floating nearby?

The Real Reason

[Fujisawa Sensei (207127)]

The real reason for the hexagon: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070408 [userfriendly.org]

What's so mysterious about it?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Of course Saturn has a hexagon. Saturn being the sixth planet from the sun, and a hexagon having six sides, it's only natural.

Re:What's so mysterious about it?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

And Earth has the Bermuda triangle. Hey! You're really onto something.

Buy Jupiter!

[camperdave (969942)]

Perhaps the Lamberj have finally purchased advertising space on Saturn for their ergone tablets. After all, the Mizzaretts only bought display space on Jupiter, and didn't set up an option on the other planets.

Drill bits

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

TFA notes that the hole in the bucket is triangular at low speeds, 4-sided as it goes faster, etc. I've noticed the same thing when using a drill bit on wood. ( This only applies to the flat 'spade' type bits, and only if you keep running the drill long after you have drilled the hole. )
When the bit starts to bounce around, and the hole starts to get larger, at low speeds - about 1000 rpm - the hole becomes triangular. At higher speeds, it becomes 4-sided. I've not been able to get 5-sided holes. You c

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Congratulations on missing the entire fucking point. When we find the mechanism behind one of these "random occurrences" we learn more about the way the universe works and it enables us to make predictions. This is called science. It's useful, as you would not have that computer in front of you with which you can spout off about things you don't understand without the scientific method.

Re:Chaos theory

[Tofystedeth (1076755)]

Not to mention there is a difference between "Hey, that cloud over there looks kinda like a butterfly if I squint and turn it sideways!" and "Hey! That enormous section of the north pole of an entire planet looks remarkably like a regular hexagon!" One is basically a rorschach (sp) test. The other is a nifty example of geometry cropping up in nature on a gigantic scale, and for an extended period of time. I don't know how long its been there, but according to the article it has been stable for at least 26 years. In addition, understanding how it works would help them understand more about what goes on underneath Saturn's surface.

Re:

[networkBoy (774728)]

while I won't say that a regular* geometrical shape can't happen in a circumpolar region of a planet for 26 years (or AFAwK twice in 26 years coincident with our two observations) randomly, it's right up there with Shakespeare written by monkeys. I'm going with that shape not being random, but rather due to some periodic/quantifiable/mathematical relationship between gravity, the angular momentum of the atmosphere, the viscosity of the atmosphere, the heat received by the sun, and something else. Finding

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

You seriously need to recalibrate your sense of what is and isn't likely to appear at random.