Astronomers concluded it is not the same and that Cassini's spot disappeared in 1708.
See full article...
See full article...
Is Jupiter’s iconic Red Spot the same one that Cassini observed in the 1600s?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
AmanoJyaku
Ars Praefectus
Saw this over the weekend. The idea the Great Red Spot is potentially a descendant is mind-blowing. It's crazy enough the thing is big enough to fit the Earth in, with room to spare.
Upvote
52
(52
/
0)
That subheading is really clunky.
Astronomers concluded it is not the same and that Cassini's spot disappeared in 1708.
Upvote
-12
(18
/
-30)
The spot went to Alpha Proxima for Christmas break. Now it is back with a tan and some useless trinkets it got at a gift shop.
Upvote
77
(84
/
-7)
Upvote
61
(62
/
-1)
This reminds me of the comment that the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another guy with the same name.
Upvote
142
(143
/
-1)
Never understood why the spot persists and doesn't dissipate, change shape, dissolve, etc., in the short term. It's all gas, even if dense.
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
I'm inclined to agree with Scott Bolton that what we're witnessing is the evolution of the spot. It could well be that the spot fluctuates over time and shrinks and grows again. Since the time the 'Permanent Spot' was first observed and now is hardly a blink in cosmic time. If it 'disappears from the 'astronomical record' and reappears in practically the same coordinates that doesn't make it 'different' or a new phenomenon but just part of the phases it goes through over time.
Last edited:
Upvote
94
(94
/
0)
Very cool. Are there careful drawings and observations without the spot? or were those always handwaved off and dismissed as being inaccurate?
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
It has definitely changed shape (and size) over the years, even in the last decade or two. It's held together by the atmosperic currents surrounding it, similar to a hurricane on earth. However, because the forces in play are much more immense, and as there is no land beneath to upset the flow of these gas currents, they persist for much longer.
Upvote
89
(90
/
-1)
as additional context to the article, if i'm not mistaken, early depictions of jupiter with the red spot put it on the "upper half" of jupiter because telescopes flipped the vertical orientation of planets. so the modern imagery of jupiter used in the comparisons are also flipped for ease of direct comparison in the article pictures.
thought of this because i've seen so many pictures of jupiter with the red spot on the "lower half" of jupiter and it was a little disorienting at first to see even the modern pictures the other way around in this article, and i assume that's what's happening
thought of this because i've seen so many pictures of jupiter with the red spot on the "lower half" of jupiter and it was a little disorienting at first to see even the modern pictures the other way around in this article, and i assume that's what's happening
Upvote
124
(124
/
0)
What coincidence?
Earth has cyclonic storms forming in almost identical places, not to mention latitudes, all the time. I don't see why the same would be THAT different on other planets. Little is known about the core of Jupiter, and how it may impact "weather patterns" in its atmosphere, but one would think that if it remains generally the same (over millions of years) then the storm patterns would remain much the same as well.
Storms on Earth do die off if energy is no longer being put into them (eg cold water/land vs warm water). It may be that the spot simply has cycles of growth and shrinkage.
The upshot is that it's very possible the spot went away and then came back, much like tropical storms do on Earth. Only there are likely more variables involved with maintaining storms on Earth than there are on Jupiter (and certainly different ones as well). That's why they last so long.
But it coming and going, or just staying where it is, in the same latitude isn't a surprise at all to me. I don't think the assertion supporting the statement that it's the same storm is entirely accurate. But if there's going to be a big red spot on Jupiter, it will probably be where the other ones have been in the past. Just like where most tropical storms form on Earth.
Upvote
91
(94
/
-3)
To paraphrase a certain Marine Drill Instructor... Astrophysics stories always makes me feel like unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit...
Upvote
-5
(2
/
-7)
I'm no engineer, but would that even be viable? The gravity of Jupiter likely would not be a problem for aligning the data transfer to Earth, but the moment the satellite hit those winds any data transfer couldn't happen.
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
Maybe. I'm just inclined to doubt that the Red Spot of today is a different or new phenomenon from the 'Permanent Spot', as the study attests, while it could be the same phenomenon having variable behavior over time. The claim that the Permanent Spot 'disappears from the astronomical record' is rather vague and I'd like to see published accounts of observations from that time period. Was it noted among the astronomical community and discussed? The article is a little lacking on that time period. Just my two cents.
Last edited:
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
Yeah, similar events happened with the Cassini probe death dive. It kept sending data until the control jets just ran out of fuel trying to keep it pointed towards earth.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Could the Great Red Spot be the remnants of a huge impactor? Shoemaker-Levy 9's impact marks only lasted several months and I'm guessing from the black appearance were just depressions. But could something much larger effect the underlying (barely realized yet) chemistry such that it helped create this storm?
Upvote
1
(8
/
-7)
Nothing is permanent on an astronomical scale. Nothing is permanent inside a windstorm. It does seem a bit counting angels on the head of a pin to try to decide whether this storm is the same storm.
Of course it varies. The question is how much. I’m not seeing the strong evidence that it ceases to exist altogether in the spotty historical record.
Of course it varies. The question is how much. I’m not seeing the strong evidence that it ceases to exist altogether in the spotty historical record.
Upvote
25
(27
/
-2)
If we end up firing a probe into it, that's definitely what we should call it
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Ah, you wish to get data back from the probe. That is another question.
I think this is an example of the American method - "shoot first and ask questions later"
Upvote
13
(18
/
-5)
Geez, first Pluto gets dissed; now the Big Red Spot. Those astronomers just show no respect at all!
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
If you think the GRS is puzzling, wait until you see the hexagon at Saturn's north pole.
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
LOL. yeah! So space is curved, huh, Einstein? Take a look at that!
(I know, I know, it doesn't apply but that don't stop the anti-science trolls.)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Not just storms on Earth.
Not just storms on planets.
Take a look at NASA animations of sunspot activity sometime. When the sun is near peak activity, you see one band in the northern hemisphere and one band in the southern hemisphere where they tend to cluster together and even form trains. It's a lot like watching bands of tropical weather on Earth at times.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
Heterocephalus glaber
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Completely irrelevant, but you're not wrong.
(source: American raised in Kentucky)
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
