[Hexagon on Saturn] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum

Pages:1


Hexagon on Saturn

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: Seth J. Chandler

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-034

Any thoughts on an NKS explanation?


Posted by: Jason Cawley

The best "explanation" so far is this (relayed by Ed Pegg, incidentally) -

http://www.physorg.com/news66924222.html

I put explanation in quotation marks because it reduces the case to a more general phenomenon, but it would be overstating it to say that phenomenon is completely understood in the other contexts where it appears. There remains mystery. Just a more general one.


Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton

I believe that a perfect shape is a matter of perspective. When you observe a 2D perfect square in 3D at various other angles, it may not be considered "perfect" by your previous standards.

It is very difficult to remember the required separation of the shape itself and the nature of the setup of the observation. I believe this still holds even if you are using "mental projections."

This also causes a problem when interpreting the results of cellular automata. Consider: what is the best way to visualize the results of a 1D cellular automaton? Is the standard grid the best way? Is the grid artificial? Is the grid actually some kind of construct which is not inherently required for the automaton to work? Are there other structures available? How does the choice of structure affect your interpretation of the results?

Returning back to the question of "perfect shape" I must say that it is worth the mental effort to attempt to break down the artificial support structures. Another question: What is the shape's container when speaking of mentally projected geometry?


Thanks,


Posted by: John Gonsowski

The same sort of thing can occur with hurricanes on earth too.

http://www.math.nyu.edu/caos_teachi...BAMS_KosSch.pdf


Posted by: Ion Saliu

"perfect shapes"

You quote from a post of mine that no longer exists! It was here, in this thread, for sure. Looks like I ain’t prompt. Time…ye know… But I do respond in cases of messages of worthy recurring themes.

Ain’t me who coined the ‘perfect shapes’ term. I think it was a mathematician who coined the term hundreds of years ago. It means ‘geometrical’ as opposed to ‘natural’. Natural has a much higher degree of randomness. Geometrical has a much higher degree of order (perfection).

Perfectly circular, or perfectly linear, we say. Only humans can create “perfect” shapes. The Universe is entirely composed of randomly shaped objects. A tiny exception can be found only on Terra. The human creations try to beat randomness by creating objects that abide by strong rules.

I don’t remember what I wrote in my deleted post. Assuredly, I had written about it here:

Probability of perfect shapes in nature (line, circles, spherical, pyramids, cylinders): rivers, mountains, trees;

WRITER: Random generator of letters to words, passwords.

Ion Saliu,
Perfectly At-Large




Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings