Bizarre Hexagon On Saturn May Be 180 Miles Tall (space.com)

Iwastheone 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.

Comments

Giant Bees

[SqueakyMouse]

Nice to see the giant bees have made a start on their honeycomb.

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[Scarletdown]

Fine then. 180 metric miles it is.

Happy now?

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[ls671]

Sure, why not? It works fine with metric ton...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's going there anytime soon or using it for anything at all.

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[ls671]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[fibonacci8]

troll/10

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

[cascadingstylesheet]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[swillden]

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

[Ol Olsoc]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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: American scientists are fine with SI

[Anonymous Coward]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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 bit because what the fuck? I went for metric. It's a nice simple 5.1mm which sits between 5.0mm and 5.2mm in the online store.

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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 word of bitching would leave these lips, because I can work in any unit of measurement provided.

And BTUs! We've abandoned them so you should probably rename them to ATUs.

Once again, give me units, and I'll work in them.

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 bit because what the fuck?

Do not disrepect fractions - they are the very base of your unit of measure.

Anyhow, what a first world problem. I have calipers that will measure in multiple units, including fractions of inches, inches and metric. I suppose it is pretty difficult to press a button and instantly measure and convert. I have a metric mill and lathe that alomst without thinking, I can make either metric or standard parts. With less thinking than what has gone into these postings.

I went for metric. It's a nice simple 5.1mm which sits between 5.0mm and 5.2mm in the online store.

That's nice. I have metric, Standard, and a few Whitworth even. The last was used on some British motorcycles. Not very adaptable are ya?

But I'n not fitting your narrative, am I? I'm supposed to be the stupid 'Murrican, insisting on that stupid standard system because of stupid.

And yet, I work largely in Metric, and save the standard works for things that are already standard. I know the advantages and disadvantages of each, but at base, understand that the metric system is just as arbitrary as anything else. If it was somehow more accurate, that might be a different thing. But it's just one more standard. I just take it as it comes, and save the brain cells for more important things, not simple mindless things.

In the end, what you are doing is arguing that ignorance and intransigence is superior to knowledge, ability and flexibility. The fun is in tweaking the noses of those people who are too rigid, or perhaps not clever enough to do the simple conversions needed. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[Anonymous Coward]

You are acting religious. You should not do that in the name of science.

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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 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.

Once again, give me units, and I'll work in them.

Just because you're able to doesn't make the system good. You're probably able to walk to every destination you go to on a regular basis. Sure it might take days but you could do it. But I suspect you choose to drive a car where you can ond only walk when you must.

Do not disrepect fractions - they are the very base of your unit of measure.

Right so your argument is to simply ignore what I wrote. Good-o.

That's nice. I have metric, Standard, and a few Whitworth even. The last was used on some British motorcycles. Not very adaptable are ya?

You can't have it both ways. What do you think I needed that #7 drill for if not working in imperial. That by your rather silly definition makes me adaptable.

But I'n not fitting your narrative, am I?

Oh god you're the kind of nutjob who uses the word "narrative" when you're not talking about a word of fiction. No wonder this is so painful.

I'm supposed to be the stupid 'Murrican,

You seem to be doing your level best to appear so.

and save the brain cells for more important things, not simple mindless things.

And that's why I prefer the metric system. No need to remember or dig out the conversion factor between cubic feet and gallons. Or BTUs per hour, horsepower and foot-pound-force per second. Or what a #7 drill is in 1/32s of an inch and/or what that is in thou.

understand that the metric system is just as arbitrary as anything else.

Then you understand wrong and don't know either the metric or imperial systems as well as you claim.

Metric has fewer arbitrary choices. You have the meter, second and kilogram. From that you get all lengths, areas, volumes, force, energy and power. That's a grand total of 3 arbitrary choices so far. Everything else is straightforward multiples which I'll discount even though there's a rather less rich variety of multiples than in imperial (that is an understatement).

Imperial. Well it has the second (of course). And the inch based lengths. Two so far. But apparently those aren't sufficient and for sizes there's also the related drill bit and wire guage size which gives us 4 choices. Area's fine (even if acres are based on some rather perverse multiples). Volumes not so much. Cubic inches, sure. But then there's the unrelated floz based units. And we're on to 5 arbitrary choices so far.

So on to mass. Well, we've got lbs. Fine. Force (lbf) is done via the Earth's grvity. Another arbitrary constant added in. That's 6. That gives us the rather natural unit of energy ft-lbf which is passable. And that gives power at er 550 ft-lbf/s. Except there's two more completely arbitrary ones, calories and BTUs. Because water is important and why stick to Farenheit anyway. That's now 8 arbitrary choices.

So no, you're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. There are demonstrably more arbitrary choices in imperial as opposed to metric.

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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 that it is now measured by an absurd fraction of the arbitrary length of time based on oscillations of a cesium isotope atom, that fraction measuring the distance light travels in a vacuum over the fraction of a second.

But that isn't what we have, is it? We have multiple measurements. It's a safe assumption that you are from somewhere in the British Isles. Do all of your citizens walk into pubs and order 0.4731765 litres of ale? While researching the metric version of the acre, lookie what I found. Real Estate in Great Plumstead with Imperial measurements first, followed by metric in Paren. Yikes! https://www.onthemarket.com/de...

But I answered the question of acres, and it is even yummier than I thought https://www.onthemarket.com/de... It is hectares, followed by acres in paren.

Seriously, I absolutely despise howaboutism, so I'll tread gently here. For all of the whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth of the metric supremacists, it is nothing short of hilarious that y'all do what you do, while just a little research shows that you are guilty of what you rail against.

I'll drink a pint with ya any day friend, while you partake of 0.4731765 litres, but you might find out that I'm no nutjob as you claim, but more of an adaptive adroit who's major vice is enjoying the trolling of fussy people. Since you seem to find it necessary to lace your posts with insults, I might take a little umbrage at your rudeness, but I am rather adaptive and all. I can tolerate rude people.

My only beef with the metric system is that there appears to be some alternative universe that 10 MM sockets seem to transport to. Perhaps the universe that one of each pair of socks ends up in when washing them. Socks and sockets. A coincidence?

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

I've figured out your problem serviscope_minor. There was a conversion error in your humor glands and you were shortchanged by 10X

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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 post you are replying to is a metric joke.

Your first attempt of a mean spirited parody of people who prefer metric by someone who doesn't actually understand the system (as you have showed). Thing is you need to understand it to actually send it up. To someone who does understand it, it seemed very cack-handed. As for the second one, yes, I guess? You know sort of downhill with a following wind. Factor of 10 errors happen about as often as people confuse yards and feet I guess.

Chillaxe me hearty

I'm quite relaxed, thanks, but it doesn't make your attempts at jokes any funnier.

tl;dr: if everyone thinks it is funny but you, the problem is you.

A couple of slashtod mods == everyone. Now that is funny.

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[Ol Olsoc]

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:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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?

Re:American scientists are fine with SI

[serviscope_minor]

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/

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 the arbitrary length of time based on oscillations of a cesium isotope atom, that fraction measuring the distance light travels in a vacuum over the fraction of a second.

Huh so it turns out you don't know much abut metric, imperial OR metrology. Caesium atom hyperfine transitions and the speed of light are the most accurate ways we can measure time and distance with current technology. Whatever our choice os units, we'd represent them in those terms at our current tech level.

But I guess that ignorance is just trolling, right? Sure thing buddy!

But I answered the question of acres, and it is even yummier than I thought https://www.onthemarket.com/de... It is hectares, followed by acres in paren.

Yummy? You have quite peculiar tastes, I must say. It's kind of cute you think you've found a deep truth. The UK is definitely a split country in this regard. Our transition to metric started more recently than the continent and we have many vestiges remaining, which are unlikely to change soon.

Day to day (and ignoring cases where you're following something old with imperial measurements), people talk about weight of humans in pounds and stone and most other things in metric, except cooking for some older people. Long distances are in miles, height of people in feet and inches and everything else in a bizarre mix. No one uses yards any more. Anything further than about 20 feet is generally metric. Anything below half an inch is in milimeters. No one uses thous which are mils over and anyway milimeters has stolen that name.

People talk about cars in horsepower but no one really has any idea what one is, and power of just about everything else is in Watts. I've seen things with BTU/Hr measurements on them but I've literally never heard anyone use the phrase.

Few younger than my parents generation uses Farenheit. Land area is almost always acres for some reason though few people have any intuitive idea how large an acre is. When it gets really big it's measured in Wales'. No one has any idea how big that is either.

Pressure is all over the place. Blood pressure is still mm/Hg and is unlikely to change. Plenty of doctors still have mercury filled U-tubes. Br is pretty common. I think some people still use lbf/in^2. Weather is usually in mb.

Everything technical is in metric. Construction is in mm. I've not heard even old builders use imperial in years.

Cricket pitches are and always be one chain long. No one seems to care how wide they are but you can be bloody well sure they're a chain long.

We by our beer in pints (568ml, not 473ml). And milk about half the time I gather, though I don't buy milk.

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[hcs_$reboot]

What? Will be easier to incorporate the US into the British empire post-Brexit.

We only Thought Stargates were Round...

[Grog6]

The question is, where does it go? :O

Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round...

[houghi]

Any 12 year old will know the answer to this one: "Probably Uranus".

Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round...

[Carewolf]

It is a wargame "square".. The question is: Who is playing?

Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round...

[penandpaper]

We need to change that name to end that juvenile joke once and for all! I propose Urectum.

Re:We only Thought Stargates were Round...

[Chelloveck]

No, it's a tessellation artifact, the kind you see on early 3D video games. The Cosmic Level Designer thought it'd be okay to reduce the polygon count because Saturn is so far away. It's like those mountains you see in the background of games. Who'd waste their time *walking* all the way there? I'm not sure what's worse, that the universe is a computer simulation or that it's a lo-res computer simulation.

So then...

[SCVonSteroids]

Saturn is really just a big alien spaceship!

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good bot.

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[houghi]

I have proposed it before and I will do here again: Please exchange the UK with Canada. Europe gets Canada and North America gets the UK.
If Northern Ireland and Scotland vote to stay, we happily just send Wales and England over.

Everybody happy and much cheaper to build a wall around it. Hey Canada: Thank for all your effort during WWII and not moaning about it.
We also have experince with the mess that bi-lingual countries are.

Isn't it obvious?

[jd]

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!".

Re: "Miles" ? Grow up.

[Lije Baley]

I take it you missed the news about "metrexit".

Re:"Miles" ? Grow up.

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

What they're not telling you

[Dasher42]

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!!!

[luis_a_espinal]

Queue Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra". Quick! Time is of the essence!

Re:THE MONOLITH!!!

[caviare]

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

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[Applehu Akbar]

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?

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[tehcyder]

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?

Hexagon's origin explained

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re: Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[barbariccow]

I think he wanted you to cite QAnon but misspelled.

units

[religionofpeas]

When I saw the headline, I knew that half the slashdot comments would be about SI units. Right again.

Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[penandpaper]

Enough to need a new pair of pants.

Hexagon has been recreated in the lab

[Solandri]

The origin of the hexagon is no real mystery. It was recreated in a laboratory tank 8 years ago. (Link includes a video showing a hexagon forming in the tank). It forms when the spin rates between the inner and outer fluid hit a certain ratio. Normally the speed differential creates a chaotic interface at the boundary layer. But at certain ratios it creates a standing wave which forms a hexagon (well, not really standing since it moves, but in a certain rotational frame it's a standing wave).

It's impressive that the hexagon is that tall, since that implies the wind speeds are consistent through that height.

Re:Hexagon has been recreated in the lab

[RockDoctor]

But at certain ratios it creates a standing wave which forms a hexagon

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.

It's impressive that the hexagon is that tall, since that implies the wind speeds are consistent through that height.

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 thickness.

Re:Hexagon has been recreated in the lab

[MrKaos]

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?

Sorry, left the lights on

[WillAffleckUW]

Next time I'll park the deep space probe in a garage.

Re:Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[Deadstick]

Might also google "Benard cell".

Re:Weapon from an advanced civilization

[sheramil]

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.

Re: Sharp corners? Miles above clouds?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Welcome to the Well World

[BubbaJonBoy]

Signed Nathan Brazil

Relationship between foot and metre

[MrKaos]

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 amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).

There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.

Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.

There is an easier way

[MrKaos]

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 amplitude changes), the pendulum has a frequency of one second. The base of the triangle it forms at the metre mark equals 1 ERC. This is interesting because 1 ERC=0.523 metres which is pi/6=0.523 radian=30 degrees. So pi/6 metres = 1.717 feet = e-1 = 1 ERC. Something else that is interesting is that 1km*phi = 1 mile (+-10metres).

There is much more than this and to really bring the relationship between these measures together 1 metre + 1 ERC = 5 feet, +1 foot = 6 feet. I think that what these numbers tell us is that the unit of measure we are using are constants (of measure perhaps) and maybe not as arbitrary as we may think. Obviously these are things you can test yourself quite easily.

Bringing us back to the topic 1:pi/6 is the two dimensional relationship of a hexagon in a circle.