Bizarre Hexagon On Saturn May Be 180 Miles Tall (space.com) 106
A reader shares a report from Space.com: The weird hexagon swirling around Saturn's north pole is much taller than scientists had thought, a new study suggests. Researchers have generally regarded the 20,000-mile-wide (32,000 kilometers) hexagon -- a jet stream composed of air moving at about 200 mph (320 km/h) -- as a lower-atmosphere phenomenon, restricted to the clouds of Saturn's troposphere. But the bizarre structure actually extends about 180 miles (300 km) above those cloud tops, up into the stratosphere, at least during the northern spring and summer, a new study suggests. The hexagon, which surrounds a smaller circular vortex situated at the north pole, has existed for at least 38 years; NASA's Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft spotted the sharp-cornered feature when they flew by Saturn in 1980 and 1981, respectively. Scientists started to get much more detailed looks at the hexagon in 2004, when NASA's Cassini spacecraft began orbiting the ringed planet. But Cassini's hexagon observations were pretty much confined to the troposphere for a decade after its arrival; springtime didn't come to Saturn's north until 2009, and low temperatures in the stratosphere continued to compromise measurements by the probe's Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS) instrument for another five years.
The formation of a stratospheric hexagon appears to be tied to the warming brought on by the change of seasons, the research team wrote in the new study. Indeed, Cassini spied a vortex high above the south pole during its early years at Saturn, when that hemisphere was enjoying summer. (Saturn takes 30 Earth years to orbit the sun, so seasons on the ringed planet last about 7.5 years apiece.) But the southern stratospheric vortex wasn't hexagonal. And neither, for that matter, is the vortex that spins around the south pole lower down, in the tropospheric clouds, the researchers said. "This could mean that there's a fundamental asymmetry between Saturn's poles that we're yet to understand, or it could mean that the north polar vortex was still developing in our last observations and kept doing so after Cassini's demise," study lead author Leigh Fletcher, of the University of Leicester in England, said in a statement.
The formation of a stratospheric hexagon appears to be tied to the warming brought on by the change of seasons, the research team wrote in the new study. Indeed, Cassini spied a vortex high above the south pole during its early years at Saturn, when that hemisphere was enjoying summer. (Saturn takes 30 Earth years to orbit the sun, so seasons on the ringed planet last about 7.5 years apiece.) But the southern stratospheric vortex wasn't hexagonal. And neither, for that matter, is the vortex that spins around the south pole lower down, in the tropospheric clouds, the researchers said. "This could mean that there's a fundamental asymmetry between Saturn's poles that we're yet to understand, or it could mean that the north polar vortex was still developing in our last observations and kept doing so after Cassini's demise," study lead author Leigh Fletcher, of the University of Leicester in England, said in a statement.
Giant Bees (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might also google "Benard cell".
Re: (Score:3)
How much experience do you have with methane winds at -180 degrees on a gas giant with high gravity? Just wondering.
Is that a trick question to see whether he's an alien visitor?
Re: (Score:2)
Enough to need a new pair of pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone ever seen wind blowing in sharp corners?
It's not an 'anomaly', it's totally ARTIFICIAL, that is, it is not something that was created by NATURE.
Those corners are sharp only when seen from interplanetary distances. Up close, there is plenty of room for natural phenomena to operate.
Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. If you look at the picture, it isn't a sharp corner. The curve radius is bigger then the earth.
2. Hexagons are natural aspects of squishing circles together. We see it in bubbles forming together and what bees make. It appears that there is some sort of outward force fighting the inward forces.
Hexagon has been recreated in the lab (Score:5, Informative)
It's impressive that the hexagon is that tall, since that implies the wind speeds are consistent through that height.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the work, but not the details. I'd be more surprised if they didn't find speed ratios that produced 4-fold symmetry standing waves and 8-fold standing waves. than if they did.
300km tall section of the sky, by 30000-odd km wide. That's a 100:1 aspect ratio, like a half-sheet of gypsum drywall width to it's thickne
Re: (Score:2)
It forms when the spin rates between the inner and outer fluid hit a certain ratio. height.
1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle, I wonder if it is the same ratio?
Re: Sharp corners? Miles above clouds? (Score:1)
I solved this mystery several years ago. The answer came after wondering why life is all carbon based. It's because the fabric of spacetime is hexagonal, carbon moves through it with the least decay. Rain drops form hexagonal snowflake because gravitational forces are not felt when it's falling through the fabric of spacetime.
I'm going to go Political with this ... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Tallest hexagon in the Solar System, folks. Taller than under Obama -- or even Lincoln. Really tall... tallest *ever*.
[ You... just... wait. :-) ]
Re: (Score:2)
Fine then. 180 metric miles it is.
Happy now?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, why not? It works fine with metric ton...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, blame the Brits for this!
Us in the US would have switched a long time ago to align with France but England beat us to it and now we have to maintain our distinctive independence from the British monarchy hence we keep using different units.
American scientists are fine with SI (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a problem with US scientists, as the published paper uses SI units throughout, no "miles" anywhere. The problem is space.com, dumbing down its science reporting to prevent its readers' brains from exploding, or something like that.
Well I beg to differ with that perception. American readers who are interested in the sciences can handle SI units just fine, it's only people with no STEM interest at all who curl up into a fetal position whenever their brains turn on. Don't paint everyone with that brush.
The solution is simple: give space.com a wide berth, or send them negative feedback about their mishandling of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Conflating localization with mishandling is quite subtle.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Did space.com misrepresent the number of significant figures in any of the unit conversions? That could genuinely be mishandling.
This is no more "dumbing down" reporting than adjusting reported times for the current timezone. Insisting on times in UTC has some merit, but isn't necessary, and is just as arbitrary as demanding SI units.
Re:American scientists are fine with SI (Score:5, Funny)
This is no more "dumbing down" reporting than adjusting reported times for the current timezone. Insisting on times in UTC has some merit, but isn't necessary, and is just as arbitrary as demanding SI units.
This!
As l like to point out to our friends who pop a gasket every time someone dares to mention a non-metric unit of measure, The official metre id defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second
A freaking fraction! And tied to the freaking second!
The second, by the way, is defined as The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Most people shorten it to nine billion oscillations, but our Metric friends pride themselves on their accuracy and the universal logic of their system
Rather arbitrary one might think, and a rather odd thing that it's adherents find it necessary to thump their chests like Gorillas in heat.
When in fact, anyone with a bit of intelligence can seamlessly move between the two systems. I have a metric lathe and mill in my home shop, but I regularly make standard parts on it. And I can make metric parts on a standard device.
So Chill, my homies, and we can get back to much more important issues, like who would win in a fight between Captain Kirk and Captain Picard.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather arbitrary one might think
Huh? No one claimed ever that the overall scale of the metric system isn't arbitrary.
The point is there's only a single scale up to integer powers of 10. There's no sillyness like having to convert gallons to cubic feet.
And BTUs! We've abandoned them so you should probably rename them to ATUs.
Oh and tools don't get me started with tools. So er ok measure in thou except when you don't and it's multiples of 1/32 of an inch except when neither is good enough and you need a #7 b
Re: (Score:2)
Rather arbitrary one might think
Huh? No one claimed ever that the overall scale of the metric system isn't arbitrary.
Surely you jest. I get to listen to how the metric system is so logical, so just right, so "we have ten fingers and ten toes, so it is perfect" when you folks who are simply not capable of using a differnt system use your inability to strut like you asre somehow superior. Stiffness and inability and whining about it are not superior. Not even close.
The point is there's only a single scale up to integer powers of 10. There's no sillyness like having to convert gallons to cubic feet.
Brittle and maladaptive. I use metric all the time. In fact, if you came to me requesting a part made in grains, I would do it, maybe crack a smile, but not a
Re: (Score:3)
Surely you jest. I get to listen to how the metric system is so logical, so just right, so "we have ten fingers and ten toes, so it is perfect" when you folks who are simply not capable of using a differnt system use your inability to strut like you asre somehow superior.
You know I did hear that. From a man. Made of straw.
Brittle and maladaptive.
Imperial measurements? Sure. I'll raise my 568ml (or is it 473) glass to that.
In fact, if you came to me requesting a part made in grains, I would do it, maybe cra
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you jest. I get to listen to how the metric system is so logical, so just right, so "we have ten fingers and ten toes, so it is perfect" when you folks who are simply not capable of using a different system use your inability to strut like you are somehow superior.
You know I did hear that. From a man. Made of straw.
And yet, here we are, with everything that you post seemingly proving my point.
Brittle and maladaptive.
Imperial measurements? Sure. I'll raise my 568ml (or is it 473) glass to that.
In fact, if you came to me requesting a part made in grains, I would do it, maybe crack a smile, but not a word of bitching would leave these lips, because I can work in any unit of measurement provided.
You're confusing "can" and "should". I can work in imperial and have done so many times. But it's full of the most inane conversion factors. So, it's basically more of a pain in the arse.
You are validating what I write as you try to refute it. You appear to find it an insufferable pain. Me? Just a different size. In an ideal world there would be 1 measurement system. But it would definitely not be based on one ten-millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator on the meridian passing through Paris, a terribly inaccurate and hopelessly non repeatable measurement. A measurement that is so awkward
Re: (Score:2)
adaptive adroit who's major vice is enjoying the trolling of fussy people.
What you want to believe:
You: cunning logical knots
Me: waaaaahhhh
What actually happens:
You: ill-informed opinion
Me: no that's stupid
You: lol i trol u lolololololol
In other words, you're this guy:
http://lol.i.trollyou.com/ [trollyou.com]
I mean don't get me wrong, if it entertains you to be be ignorant and base your opinions on that, go nuts. Oh! Ans speaking of which:
A measurement that is so awkward that it is now measured by an absurd fraction of t
Relationship between foot and metre (Score:2)
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the last resort of the desperate. If you can't argue on facts and can't win on emotion, try blaming the other person's sense of humor. I guess that means you have conceded that the imperial system is objectively more arbitrary, though in the last gracious way possible..
Unlike yours, my sense of humor actually works properly. Not only do I laugh when things are actually funny, I'm capable of telling when things aren't funny too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the last resort of the desperate. If you can't argue on facts and can't win on emotion, try blaming the other person's sense of humor. I guess that means you have conceded that the imperial system is objectively more arbitrary, though in the last gracious way possible..
Unlike yours, my sense of humor actually works properly. Not only do I laugh when things are actually funny, I'm capable of telling when things aren't funny too.
I feel quite sorry for you. You not only have a real problem with humor, you appear to have some deep seated anger issues. Don''t find it funny? Argue with the moderators. The individual does not need to find the humor in any given piece. But they do need to understand that is what is intended. Even the post you are replying to is a metric joke. Chillaxe me hearty - life is a lot more fun when you see the humor in it.
tl;dr: if everyone thinks it is funny but you, the problem is you.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel quite sorry for you.
Yay?
You not only have a real problem with humor
We already established that wasn't the case.
you appear to have some deep seated anger issues.
You seem pretty desparate for validation from me. I'm sorry man, it just wasn't a funny enough "joke" and I'm just not gonna laugh no matter how much you beg.
Don''t find it funny? Argue with the moderators.
Wowzers, you get validation from the moderators here. That's... a thing.
But they do need to understand that is what is intended. Even the
Re: (Score:2)
I feel quite sorry for you.
Yay?
Look, I'm not going to pick on you any more, because my mother taught me better. Rant if you like, it might release your demons for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not going to pick on you any more, because my mother taught me better. Rant if you like, it might release your demons for a while
Huh your jokes do seem to be improving; fancy that! At least that was pretty funny. Intended, I presume?
There is an easier way (Score:2)
As l like to point out to our friends who pop a gasket every time someone dares to mention a non-metric unit of measure, The official metre id defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 second
You maybe interested to know that there is an indirect relationship between the metre and the foot.
This relationship moderated by the cubit. More specifically the Egyptian Royal Cubit (ERC). If you set unity as one foot then the relationship between a foot to a cubit is expressed in the ratio of 1:(e-1) (Euler-1).
Interestingly the relationship doesn't end there. If you take a one metre pendulum and swing it 15 degrees from the resting point (i.e through 30 degrees - but no more because the amplit
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a problem with US scientists, as the published paper uses SI units throughout, no "miles" anywhere. The problem is space.com, dumbing down its science reporting to prevent its readers' brains from exploding, or something like that.
Well I beg to differ with that perception. American readers who are interested in the sciences can handle SI units just fine, it's only people with no STEM interest at all who curl up into a fetal position whenever their brains turn on. Don't paint everyone with that brush.
The solution is simple: give space.com a wide berth, or send them negative feedback about their mishandling of science.
Or, you know, a news source that writes in the popular style could just use the units that its readers use every day.
But that wouldn't give us that little shivery feeling of superiority, would it now?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, a news source that writes in the popular style could just use the units that its readers use every day.
But that wouldn't give us that little shivery feeling of superiority, would it now?
Which groups are getting that shivery feeling of superiority - the Euro-entities or the dumb 'Murricans.
Mention a non-metric measurement, and the metric crowd goes nuts about their arbitrary measurement system, while the dumb 'Murricans just shrug their shoulders and go on working with both systems.
Going crazy is more a symptom of insecurity. Meanwhile my metric bois, the meter is defined using a fraction, and approximately 9 billion oscillations of a cesium atom.
Re: (Score:2)
You should try the "shivery feeling of superiority" from demanding all non-metric weights declare Avoirdupois or Imperial.
I sure as hell wouldn't demand that. I wonder, who is? Everyone I've worked with has pretty seamlessly worked in both methods since the 1970's. Just say metric, and it's metric, standard, and it's standard
Perhaps y'all might think about being less intransigent. Perhaps any "shivery feeling of superiority" should be reserved for those who aren't constrained by one system of measurement.
But that would be a really silly thing to feel superior about, donchya think?
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple: give space.com a wide berth, or send them negative feedback about their mishandling of science.
Using imperial units is not "mishandling of science". The numbers are valid regardless of the units chosen, assuming the conversions are done correctly, and with appropriate significant digits. And there's nothing wrong with a web site choosing the units that are most familiar to its primary audience.
Re: American scientists are fine with SI (Score:1)
They teach the metric system in U.S. schools. I recall doing metric system conversions back in Middle School. We don't use the imperial system because we don't know the metric system, we use it because it's so much fun to watch the 'Urpeans pitch such a fit about it.
Re: (Score:1)
You are acting religious. You should not do that in the name of science.
Re: (Score:1)
Good bot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Miles" ? Grow up. (Score:2)
I take it you missed the news about "metrexit".
Re: (Score:1)
FFS America, it's time to leave the awful Imperial units behind, just like the British Empire has.
How strange. The last time I was in the UK, the speed limit signs were still in miles per hour. I believe the national speed limit was 70 MPH.
So what? (Score:1)
Nobody's going there anytime soon or using it for anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just be honest and to the point. That is an advanced super weapon directed at earth...
Pretty sure it's pointing up out of the plane of the ecliptic. It's not going to hit very many planets aimed like that.
We only Thought Stargates were Round... (Score:2)
The question is, where does it go? :O
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to change that name to end that juvenile joke once and for all! I propose Urectum.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a wargame "square".. The question is: Who is playing?
Re: (Score:2)
So then... (Score:2)
Saturn is really just a big alien spaceship!
And all due to AGW (Score:1)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Thargons.
This is clearly an attempt to create a Thargoid base on Saturn, or maybe it's one of their ships.
On being asked for a statement, Commander Jameson repeatedly stated "It isn't my fault!".
What they're not telling you (Score:2)
What they're not telling you, and NASA may well deny a little too quickly, is that they found a gap for some other hexagonal shapes that Cassini was able to drop in for a perfect fit, whereupon the entire layer immediately disappeared.
THE MONOLITH!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I felt a great disturbance in the slashdot community, as though millions of us suddenly had similar thoughts and were suddenly silenced by this post.
Monolith (Score:2)
2001 was a fine documentary, but they got the shape of the monolith wrong. Obviously it's hexagonal, because such a shape is better at tiling over curved surfaces than a rectangle.
Hexagon's origin explained (Score:3, Informative)
I saw a pot at a musuem filled with water and glitter. It was hooked up to a motor which would swirl the glitter water. At just the right amount of swirl, the pattern formed inside was hexagonal. Fluid dynamics, all natural, no aliens involved.
Oh, and for all you foreigners on Slashdot: the US does not use "imperial" measurements. Only the countries that gained their independence from the UK in the 20th Century used those (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.), as well as the UK, obviously. The US uses "Customary" units which evolved from imperial units but had most of the weirdness removed (rationalized).
units (Score:2)
When I saw the headline, I knew that half the slashdot comments would be about SI units. Right again.
Sorry, left the lights on (Score:2)
Next time I'll park the deep space probe in a garage.
Welcome to the Well World (Score:1)
Signed Nathan Brazil