7 ms·
An interesting phenomenon. Are we interested in it because it seems to be a rare and observable event that seems “magical”? Or is there a deeper search for mean
by dpflan 7y ago
An interesting phenomenon. Are we interested in it because it seems to be a rare and observable event that seems “magical”? Or is there a deeper search for meaning here?
- _bxg1 7y agoThe near-perfection of the circular shape is what really makes it stand out. It's strange to see such regularity in natural phenomenons.
- agumonkey 7y agomaybe it's a ~logical result of taking the limit of a fractal ?
- thisisastopsign 7y agoNot really. Nature is full of beautiful symmetry
- stoops 7y agoNot that large
- 40four 7y agoI don’t know the earth is pretty big :) It is a near perfect circle, as are all the other planets & moons we observe. Maybe the rings of Saturn? Just kidding around really, but I have to imagine that pockets of circular water currents like this, are more common than we would think. We just can’t easily observe the dynamics of water flow until something like this happens, where a bunch of ice builds up and makes it obvious.
- ergothus 7y agoThe earth is pretty lumpy, what with mountains and oceans, and the earth is where I learned the term "oblate spheroid".
- Talanes 7y agoLess lumpy than a billiard ball. The mountains and trenches only seem significant because the whole thing is so big. Totally not a perfect sphere though, yeah.
- scbrg 7y ago> Less lumpy than a billiard ball. Well, no: https://ourplnt.com/earth-smooth-billiard-ball/ https://ourplnt.com/earth-smooth-billiard-ball/ The myth is springs from the fact that if you had a smooth earth with a radius of center to Mariana Trench, and another smooth earth with a radius of center to Mt. Everest, you could shrink both of them by the same factor and fall within allowed billiard ball specifications. That says nothing about smoothness, only about the allowed size of ball. If you actually shrunk the earth we're living on, the ball would still be rejected as quite too rough.
- djmips 7y agoIf you shrunk the earth down to the size of a billiard ball and the imperfections where only as rough as the bumps in medium sandpaper then that's still pretty darn round even if it wouldn't be acceptable under official billiard ball specifications. I never could get behind the idea that it would be smooth as a billiard ball but to know you could feel the ridges is pretty neat and yet it's very very round.
- danwills 7y agoAgreed (though circle is pretty common, but,) has anyone ever seen any trace of a mandelbrot-shaped feature anywhere in nature? (I mean the whole set, not just seahorses/etc) I'm on the hunt!
- aasasd 7y agoIf you aren't looking for Mandelbrot specifically, Romanesco broccoli is the most fractal-y plant I know.
- _bxg1 7y agoThe actual Mandelbrot is a very specific and complex mathematical pattern; I'd be very surprised to see it. But fractals in general are everywhere.
- itronitron 7y agoferns, palms, and sunflowers are good places to start
- ftvy 7y agoI am certain that someone would have noticed this happening before. Maybe it is a symptom of climate change. Instead of ice being dammed up earlier in the river, it moves further down and freezes in the currents.
- spritecranberry 7y agoThis sort of speculation harms the argument for climate change more than it helps it. To convince others, it's better to build a case on scientific fact and large-scale issues than one specific interest of a likely-natural oddity.
- ftvy 7y agoIt's an observation, not a statement of fact. >large-scale issues Oh, so since this is an isolated phenomenon that it is your preference to ignore this as evidence for your cause because it doesn't meet your criteria. That's not science either. >This sort of speculation harms the argument for climate change more than it helps it. What? Do you get mad at people for saying "it looks like rain"?
- bnegreve 7y agoYou're being unfair. Speculation is how you create new hypothesis and it is perfectly ok as long as you don't confuse your hypothesis with a theory. (which GP did not) This particular hypothesis seems to be invalidated by the fact that the phenomenon was observed before, back in 1895. See the wikipedia link in comment above.
- bnegreve 7y agoAs a response to whoever thinks ftvy was arming HN community by doing unreasonable speculation (and downvoted both our comments), let me quote the first, most upvoted comment on another thread, currently on the main page. > I agree in part in that I am skeptical that full self-driving cars will happen in the next few years, but he is completely wrong when it comes to the long term. Not only will the tech get as good as humans, but most forget to account for the fact that the environment will meet the cars part way. [..] As you can see, speculation is well accepted in the HN community. This is why I think spritecranberry's comment was unfair. Full thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22085756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22085756
- nwrk 7y agoLooked wikipedia. "An unusual natural phenomenon, ice disks occur in slowly moving water in cold climates and can vary in size, with circles more than 15 metres (49 ft) in diameter..." There has been few more of them around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_circle
- aasasd 7y agoIt's very neat.