by Tekija » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:15 am
neufer wrote:Tekija wrote:
Surely, Ahuna Mons must have something in common with the adjoining depression that has almost exactly the same size and shape - a negative image of it, so to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuna_Mons wrote:
<<
Ahuna Mons is roughly antipodal to the largest impact basin on Ceres, 280 km diameter Kerwan. Seismic energy from the Kerwan-forming impact may have been focused on the opposite side of Ceres, fracturing the outer layers of the area and facilitating the movement of high viscosity cryovolcanic magma (consisting of muddy water ice softened by its content of salts) that was then extruded onto the surface. Crater counts suggest that formation of the mountain continued into the last several hundred million years, making this a relatively young geological feature.
Kerwan is the largest confirmed crater and geological feature on Ceres. The crater is distinctly shallow for its size, and lacks a central peak. A central peak might have been destroyed by a 15-kilometer-wide crater at the center of Kerwan. The crater is likely to be old relative to the rest of Ceres's surface, as it is overlapped by nearly every other feature in the area. (The crater is named after the Hopi spirit of sprouting maize, Kerwan. The name was approved by the IAU on July 3, 2015.)
Neufer, the large impact and AM are geologically of very different age. We can safely conclude that AM was not a direct consequence of that impact. The creater just adjacent to AM appears to be roughly of the same age than AM by lack of sign of later events. When that local impact occurred, it seems reasonable to posit that a similar amount of the salty viscous sludge under the crust was expelled where the antipodally weakened crust had a crack or otherwise was weakest, making AM an indirect consequence of the large impact whereas the small recent impact may have been a direct cause of a tit for tat creater and mound.
[quote="neufer"][float=right][img3=""]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/PIA20399-Ceres-DwarfPlanet-AhunaMons-rel20160311.jpg/255px-PIA20399-Ceres-DwarfPlanet-AhunaMons-rel20160311.jpg[/img3][img3="[b][color=#0000FF]Ahuna Mons is roughly antipodal to the
largest impact basin on Ceres: Kerwan[/color][/b]"]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/PIA19596-Ceres-DwarfPlanet-Dawn-2ndMappingOrbit-image28-20150625.jpg/260px-PIA19596-Ceres-DwarfPlanet-Dawn-2ndMappingOrbit-image28-20150625.jpg[/img3][/float][quote="Tekija"]
Surely, Ahuna Mons must have something in common with the adjoining depression that has almost exactly the same size and shape - a negative image of it, so to say.[/quote][quote=" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahuna_Mons"]
<<[b][color=#0000FF]Ahuna Mons is roughly antipodal to the largest impact basin on Ceres, 280 km diameter Kerwan. Seismic energy from the Kerwan-forming impact may have been focused on the opposite side of Ceres, fracturing the outer layers of the area and facilitating the movement of high viscosity cryovolcanic magma (consisting of muddy water ice softened by its content of salts) that was then extruded onto the surface.[/color][/b] Crater counts suggest that formation of the mountain continued into the last several hundred million years, making this a relatively young geological feature.
Kerwan is the largest confirmed crater and geological feature on Ceres. The crater is distinctly shallow for its size, and lacks a central peak. A central peak might have been destroyed by a 15-kilometer-wide crater at the center of Kerwan. The crater is likely to be old relative to the rest of Ceres's surface, as it is overlapped by nearly every other feature in the area. (The crater is named after the Hopi spirit of sprouting maize, Kerwan. The name was approved by the IAU on July 3, 2015.)[/quote][/quote]
Neufer, the large impact and AM are geologically of very different age. We can safely conclude that AM was not a direct consequence of that impact. The creater just adjacent to AM appears to be roughly of the same age than AM by lack of sign of later events. When that local impact occurred, it seems reasonable to posit that a similar amount of the salty viscous sludge under the crust was expelled where the antipodally weakened crust had a crack or otherwise was weakest, making AM an indirect consequence of the large impact whereas the small recent impact may have been a direct cause of a tit for tat creater and mound.