Talk:Iapetus (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iapetus (moon) article.
Article policies
WikiProject Solar System
Solar System Portal

This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Capitalisation?

I see throughout the article, "lapetus" is written with a lowecase "l". Is this intentional? I would have thought that, being a proper noun, it should always be written Lapetus? --GrahamDo (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not lapetus, it's Iapetus. It helps if you have a font that distinguishes el from i! kwami (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

Usonian pronunciation eye-ap'-a-tus, British jap'-a-tus. Adjectival form Iapetian, Japetian, stress on the e: eye'-a-pee'-shun, ja-pee'-tee-un.

[edit] Copy

I notice that this article bears a clear relationship to this website: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/iapetus.htm

Not sure if permission was given, or what the situation is. If not, then the page needs to be rewritten. If so, the permission or explanation should be given here on the talk page.

--Chinasaur 06:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've just given the text a thorough reworking, but since I used only the questionable text itself as a source I'm still a little wary of the similarity. I'll go hunt for some new material to add in and hopefully diverge this article even farther. Bryan 07:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There. What do you think? Bryan 08:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2001

-- I just read ACC's 2001, and as I recall, it described a white ellipse, like an eye, centered on the moon's equator and aligned towards the poles, with the monolith exactly in the centre. I don't remember anything about this "white circle in a black circle" business. It can't come from the movie either, because Discovery only went to Jupiter in the movie. Thoughts?? ryan 13:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You could be right, I based that comment on foggy memories of 2001 and some later comments by Clarke. The essence of what I wrote is true, but I may have misremembered the details. If anyone has a copy of 2001 to hand, please correct my work! The Singing Badger 14:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

It's actually on the surface of Iapetus in the book, in the center of the white region, like the pupil of an eye. Bowman actually goes down to the surface with one of Discovery's pods, reasoning (correctly) that the surface gravity of the moon is low enough that he could return to the ship orbiting the moon using the weak navigational thrusters on the pod. Of course, he never does come back... Cakedamber

Just read your remarks and checked the book. I don't know how I could have missed it -- guess the sequence from the movie influenced my perception. There is no actual line in the book saying that the second monolith "stood on the surface." However, in chapter 38, while making his request to go EVA, Bowman says: "If it appears safe, I'll land beside it -- or even on top of it." He could land beside it only if ot was on the moon's surface. So you're right on this one.
But in 2010: Odyssey Two, the monolith is not on Iapetus surface, but up in space. In the movie 2001, if I'm not mistaken, there's a scene where you see the monolith fly around in space, too. --213.80.3.66 09:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In the movies and subsequent books the monolith orbits Jupiter. Only in the book 2001: A Space Odyssey Iapetus is the location of the monolith.--Jyril 12:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW -- Why isn't this discussion in the 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) page?
Robeykr 03:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Talk)
It's in reply to a trivia fact about Iapetus. --Patteroast 10:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, should something be included about Iapetus being featured in 2001? Worldthoughts 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation that Iapetus is artificial

I really dont like this phrase: The scientific mainstream considers such ideas fanciful at best. It's so NPOV and it tries to rediculize all the section in a superior point of view, as if mainstrem science is always correct, as we all know it isnt. That section has very out of normal ideas, but we should accept it, while just saying it is not maintstream science, or something else, very mild, so that the reader can understand that is possibly incorrect and it is not supported by most scientists. These ideas are good for astronomy, cause it will make scientists look for true reasons and the public like these things. I'm not supporting an article like the one of Atlantis, but some of these exotic therories are also fascinating because it makes you wonder... -Pedro 18:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; the scientific mainstream DOES consider those speculations fanciful at best. Rather, I'd say, the scientific mainstream would use words such as "nonsense" or "bullshit". I think that such fringe science theories should be presented - they are out there afterall, and they make a good read really - there is nothing wrong with pointing out that they are, well, fringy. At least the statement chosen in the article isn't insulting or anything. -- Nils Jeppe 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think such "theories" (they are, in fact, wishful thinking. There is no real evidence of Iapetus being in fact of artificial origin) deserve being mentioned at all. It is not the fact that these theories sound "wild" or "fringy" or whatever that bothers me, it's the complete lack of credible evidence to support them. If you're making an encyclopedia, try to stick to facts rather than list products of wishful thinking of a few. Making a "good read" isn't a very good reason to include such things either. - Speth, February 13, 2006
I disagree. Such "theories" should be included. The hypothesis you mention isn't just limited to a couple of cranks, you know. It just shouldn't be touted as a "fact". 70.101.145.211 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Does everyone get a soap box now? I have a theory my dad created it. Can I post that up there? This is dedicated to information, lets try to keep the sources open, but credible.


When I hear such talk from the Mainstream Scientific "Religious" organizations, I ask... What are you afraid of? The only way to dispell [b]ANY[/b] theory is to go there with a manned crew and land and look about. This might be done with rovers but then there is still the possiability for interpertation(SP). A Manned Crew would not be able to make any judgement views, it would all be black and white. Magnum Serpentine 5 July 2006.
  • In the past people believed there were seas in the Moon and Mars, so for you that should be excluded from those articles?!--Pedro 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Such claims are completely unencyclopedic unless they have gained considerable publicity (cf. the Face on Mars). Removed.--JyriL talk 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been dead for a year. Can we remove the mergeform from the article now? Anybody against it?CWitte 12:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the tag was related to the fresher discussion in a section below. In any case, I think it can be removed since a long discussion led to a decision to merge the speculation into Richard Hoagland rather than Iapetus. Deuar 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another theory for the origin of the equatorial ridge

The equatorial ridge may be the remnant of a ring around Iapetus. See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025386.shtml --JyriL talk 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about Mythology

Just a minor thing but, the last part of the section on the name origin (i.e. mythology) says this... "wherein he suggested the names of the Titans, sisters and brothers of Cronos (the Roman Saturn), be used.". Now correct me if I'm wrong here but I'm pretty sure Cronos and the Titans were Greek (not Roman as is being implied), and Saturn is Roman (so "the Roman Saturn" makes no sense). I think what it was supposed to say was "the Greek Saturn". So I'm going to go ahead and change it, if I’m wrong on this, revert it. --Hibernian 05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japetus?

I doubt that it's ever spelled "Japetus". That's a ridiculous spelling as it looks like it should be pronounced with a "j" sound. Astroguy2 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The spelling has been used, in fact from the earliest attestations of the usage (in the 19th century). The story of why there should be two spellings is complicated, and really out of place in this article; but I suppose it can be recounted here.

Latin originally did not distinguish i from j in spelling, using the same letter I for both; and even in printed texts as late as the Renaissance, the letters were often not distinguished. The letter however represented three different sounds, namely the vowels [ i ] and [ iː], and the glide-consonant [ j ] (equivalent to the English consonant "y"). In later printed texts, the convention grew of representing the vowels by I and i, and the consonant by J and j, these being pronounced differently by different nations.

In Greek, which had lost its [ j ] sound, the Greek letter iota (Greek: Ι and ι) always represented a vowel sound. However, when the Romans borrowed the name Ιαπετός as IAPETVS, because of the ambiguity of the letter I, it could be pronounced either [ iːapetus ] or incorrectly [ japetus ]. The latter was, in fact, the reading that would tend to be adopted, because initial I before another vowel was almost always [ j ] in Latin words.

Accordingly, there was a tradition of reading the name as "Japetus", with three syllables. This reading was, however, eventually displaced as scholars pointed out that in Greek the I was unquestionably a vowel, at which point "Iapetus" came to prevail. I'm not sure of the timing, but I believe that the transition was in progress at the time Herschel gave the moon its name. So in a way both forms are "right"; they just represent different traditions.RandomCritic 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed merge with Speculation that Iapetus is artificial

It has been suggested to reinclude this Hoagland speculation that was removed a while back. I'm against, I see no reason to keep including all the wacky stuff this guy makes up. It is completely un-notable with regard to the astronomical object, and this little obscure "theory" should be happy that a whole article about it is allowed to live in the encycolpedia at all. Deuar 11:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support deleting the speculation article without merging. If the speculation reappears here, it should be removed on sight. Wacky theories, like the Face of Mars, deserve inclusion because of their publicity (accompanied with proper debunking), but this one is way to obscure. Hoagland has about a zillion such "theories", none of which deserves inclusion. — JyriL talk 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I also support removing any speculatory content like that from the Iapetus page. The theory is not even worth discussing IMHO. Ugo 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that deletion of Speculation that Iapetus is artificial is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial. --Tikiwont 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The absolute worst alternative would be to leave a POV fork speculative "Artificial Iapetus" standalone article as there is now. If the speculation is in Wikipedia at all, it should be in this article, where someone who Googles "Iapetus" and comes to Wikipedia will see well sourced and rational scientific information along with the speculation about it being a geodesic dome, a monument, or a deathstar, as in the Hoagland website. The Speculation that Iapetus is artificial article should be deleted, Please do not just turn up your scientific noses and ignore the speculative article. Edison 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This should not be merged back. I don't see that the theory currently has much traction anywhere. 132.205.44.5 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has apaprently concluded with aa decision to merge with the Hoagland article rather than with Iapetus. In this light, I think the merge tag can be removed from this article. Deuar 20:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge discovery date

The article says the ridge was "discovered" on 31 December 2004. Possibly there was some sort of announcement about it on that date, but it was visible on photos a released publicly a few days earlier. This LiveJournal post from 27 December 2004, for example, commented on the early images. Perhaps the wording about a "discovery" date needs to be adjusted. -- Infrogmation 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'd just replace the date with "late December 2004" as the discovery date as that was the timeframe. It wouldn't be ambiguous. The flyby was a rather leisurely one and as you say the ridge already became apparent in distant approach coverage several days before closest approach. Ugo 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] equatorial ridge image

The latest image Image:Iapetus mountains Larger.jpg seems to be broken for some reason (the link works fine but the thumbnail is not displayed). The bug was resistant to my amateur attempots at fixes, anyone have better ideas? Deuar 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a problem across Wikipedia with certain types of image (I'm not sure which types, though). They seem to be loading very slowly, rather than missing. Hopefully it will be solved soon. Rubble pile 13:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add section for Coated craters / Inky spots?

I added a section covering this some time ago but had it removed for some reason, I would like to ask what you think. It relates to the new pictures taken from Cassini. here and here They are could be many things so wild speculations have appeared as in the NASA: APOD states:

Iapetus itself has a density close to that of water ice, but the detailed reflective properties of the dark material suggest an organic composition.

It does sound really far-fetched in my opinion but the spots must have come from somewhere. Perhaps they are dust stains from Rhea thrown up by meteor impacts? Nicklas Hult (SE) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would an organic composition be far-fetched? Organic does not imply living organisms, merely carbon-based substances. There's organic stuff all across the solar system. Titan is practically swimming in organic goo! Ugo 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I didnt know "organic" meant that in English. Then do you agree that this section should be added? Mine was deleted here stating it as "Untrue". What do you think? Nicklas Hult (SE) 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Organic i.e. "Organiskt" in Swedish means that it really comes from something living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzeitak (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You said "biological" and that is by far not the same as "organic". Organic chemistry for example deals with carbon based compounds. Anyway, I'd rather leave any speculation of APOD guys out of the page just now. It's been only a week since the flyby. BTW, the flyby closest approach was on 10th, not 12th Sep. --Ugo 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah there we have it. Maybe ill try to add a subsection with more correction. Though I thought I had it all figured out, sometimes language breaches make things confusing and correct definitions are imperative for dictionaries. I havn't edited Wikipedia much really. Nicklas Hult (SE) 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For the swedish speaking folks around: sv:organisk kemi will help you to understand the meaning of the term in your own language, which seems actually to be the same as in english, german, dutch and probably a lot of other languages... :-)--CWitte 08:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I reworded that section based on the Sept. 10 flyby. Sorry, it was rather a rush job, but I wanted to get some of the new info up right away, since people will be looking for it. I read but now cannot locate the new press releases on the composition of the dark material; that bit needs to be updated. The bright/dark spots you were asking about should be included there, I think, as they fit in with why it seems there are no shades of grey. Also, some of the old hypotheses for the source may need to be revisited; I went over them only lightly. kwami 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)