Starship Asterisk*

flying thru debris of an ice volcano

Ozoz1 wrote:Looks like the bubbles an indentations that form when you cook a pancake on a hot griddle...,)

Zounds!! An astounding comparison. Heat below the surface. Investigate Thoroughly!

SouthEastAsia wrote:My question would be: where is the Sun in relation to this photo? Are there shadows??

Confusing pic nonetheless to me, as there definitely seems to be multiple intricate patterns of various orientations and not some random or singular effect causing these formations.

Would be interesting to see a larger portion of the area from a greater distance.

Alohascope wrote:

SouthEastAsia wrote:My question would be: where is the Sun in relation to this photo? Are there shadows??

Confusing pic nonetheless to me, as there definitely seems to be multiple intricate patterns of various orientations and not some random or singular effect causing these formations.

Would be interesting to see a larger portion of the area from a greater distance.

Ah .. request granted .. and, looks like a little Christian chapel in the top left corner of this image. http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encou ... _sci_3.jpg

And in the same image notice how the pits seem to conform to the contours of the rugged masses in the lower half of the image .. those masses said in another image to be ice mountains. What happens when ice meets liquid nitrogen? http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encou ... _sci_3.jpg

Alohascope wrote:And in the same image notice how the pits seem to conform to the contours of the rugged masses in the lower half of the image .. those masses said in another image to be ice mountains. What happens when ice meets liquid nitrogen? http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encou ... _sci_3.jpg

That expanded image seems to be flipped? The image seems to have 'shadows' to the right of the 'beeds'? While APOD's image seems to the 'shadows' on the left of the beeds?

The pits remind me of snow in grass or small thin plants that stick up. When the sun comes out- each stem develops a pit/hole surrounding it due to slight extra warmth the planet gained from the sunlight due to the difference in albedo (being darker than the snow). So... maybe there are small slightly darker things on the surface that absorb just a bit more feeble sunlight and cause the pits. The pattern was laid down to due to an underlying surface pattern/geology. Of course I am certainly wrong... but fun to guess.

There is a lot of intrigue over Plutos apparent lack of meteor impacts which would seem to indicate a relatively active topology. I wonder however if an outer solar system body such as Pluto will have experienced the same rate of impacts as an inner solar system counterpart. Charon certainly displays its battle scars but how does it compare to our weary and loyal Moon?
I ponder to what extent we can use the same timescale to estimate geologic activity based on meteor impact evidence. I'm supposing it would come down to the general distribution of debris in our developing planetary disc determining the probability of pockmarking events. Is this a thing?

Liebencrantz wrote:There is a lot of intrigue over Plutos apparent lack of meteor impacts which would seem to indicate a relatively active topology. I wonder however if an outer solar system body such as Pluto will have experienced the same rate of impacts as an inner solar system counterpart. Charon certainly displays its battle scars but how does it compare to our weary and loyal Moon?
I ponder to what extent we can use the same timescale to estimate geologic activity based on meteor impact evidence. I'm supposing it would come down to the general distribution of debris in our developing planetary disc determining the probability of pockmarking events. Is this a thing?

Yes, it's a thing. We have a decent understanding of cratering rates for any given body in the Solar System. Cratering on the Moon is actually a tricky issue, because the vast majority of what we see was laid down very early in the history of the Solar System, which hides the much slower rate of cratering that has occurred since.

neufer wrote:

[b][size=150][color=#0000FF]Plan(et) 9 From Outer Space[/color][/size][/b]

---

starsurfer wrote:
Pluto continues to astound and surprise everyone holding the world captivated while it whirls its long path around the Sun!

Looking at this picture does funny things to my eyes?!

...Paralyze the living

Just as the Plutonians had planned.

I am a zombie, your wish will command me.

Liebencrantz wrote:There is a lot of intrigue over Plutos apparent lack of meteor impacts which would seem to indicate a relatively active topology.

I think the main reason for the lack of impact craters is Pluto's distance away from the asteroid belt and the inner part of the Solar System, which would have contained many meteorites and asteroids in the past.

starsurfer wrote:

Liebencrantz wrote:There is a lot of intrigue over Plutos apparent lack of meteor impacts which would seem to indicate a relatively active topology.

I think the main reason for the lack of impact craters is Pluto's distance away from the asteroid belt and the inner part of the Solar System, which would have contained many meteorites and asteroids in the past.

Perhaps in an absolute sense. But the impact rate is considered in evaluating the age of a surface. The actual crater density on Pluto is indicative of a young surface.

Humor aside, these are almost certainly signs of a sublimation for starters. Since the description claims such of its own accord, I find it rather easy to agree with them. Even if we don't always agree with them, our fearless leaders seldom make statements unequal to common sense. I doubt Pluto really needs to be closer to the sun than Neptune to activate sublimation.

But why sublimate creating this form? We can speculate until we're blue in the face and all we'll get out of it is blue faces. or green...

I will offer up one speculation. If outgassing of the nitrogen managed to reduce the hard surface these low temperature tend to produce, I suppose it is possible that, as Pluto orbited, an area less firm having been weakened by sublimation crossed a field of objects of unknown size caught in Plutos way as it made its way around the sun. Like our Leonids as we pass through the bits of Temple/Tuttle but likely considerably larger. That would account for a mass of small, tightly congested craters. But I don't believe this formulation could take place as described unless that lake of harder than rock, frozen nitrogen had sublimated until it had become somewhat fragile first.

Chris Peterson wrote:

starsurfer wrote:

Liebencrantz wrote:There is a lot of intrigue over Plutos apparent lack of meteor impacts which would seem to indicate a relatively active topology.

I think the main reason for the lack of impact craters is Pluto's distance away from the asteroid belt and the inner part of the Solar System, which would have contained many meteorites and asteroids in the past.

Perhaps in an absolute sense. But the impact rate is considered in evaluating the age of a surface. The actual crater density on Pluto is indicative of a young surface.

Or maybe it's indicative of an older surface that has been constantly renewed and refreshed with new material that has buried any older impacts?

starsurfer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:But the impact rate is considered in evaluating the age of a surface. The actual crater density on Pluto is indicative of a young surface.

Or maybe it's indicative of an older surface that has been constantly renewed and refreshed with new material that has buried any older impacts?

In planetary science, that's the definition of a young surface. The presumption is that if you don't see the expected cratering, they have been buried or eroded.

Surfing on Pluto: Pit mystery solved. http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encou ... _sci_3.jpg

The ice mountains are said to be 10,000 feet high. http://www.space.com/29961-pluto-ice-mo ... hotos.html

An ocean of liquid salt water lies under the frozen nitrogen. http://news.mit.edu/2015/new-horizons-d ... ocean-0729
Like earth's moon Pluto's moons cause tides and currents which cause waves in Pluto's ocean.

Those waves move in straight lines and curved lines both towards and out from the ice mountainshttp://www.coastal.udel.edu/ngs/waves.html

According to different elevations of rock or whatever lies on the bottom of the saltwater ocean the height of the waves create pressure, more or less, on the bottom surface of the frozen nitrogen. That pressure plus the relative warmth of the salt water creates warmth in the frozen nitrogen, and as in heat from a frying pan heating pancake batter releases bubbles of carbon dioxide, the pits are melted pockets of nitrogen which 'pop' open into pits.

Could these possibly be the result of a Plutoquake? The most closely aligned pits appear almost like ripples caused by high vibrations (as in water sitting in a cup that ripples when an electric razor is touched to the cup).

SeedsOfEarth wrote:Could these possibly be the result of a Plutoquake? The most closely aligned pits appear almost like ripples caused by high vibrations (as in water sitting in a cup that ripples when an electric razor is touched to the cup).

The pits follow coastlines .. they spread out in refraction wave patterns from those coastlines. A plutoquake could send waves through the ocean, but the quakes would have to be frequent to cause enough waves to melt the ice through the 'heat from beneath' process. Much more likely they are tidal waves caused by the planets interactions with its moons. I use the word planet in the honorable sense.

Alohascope wrote: The ice mountains are said to be 10,000 feet high. http://www.space.com/29961-pluto-ice-mo ... hotos.html

Yes mountains. But these mountains do not necessarily penetrate the ice layer. According to my theory, they do not penetrate the ice layer ( so they do not rest on the rocky surface below either).

Alohascope wrote: An ocean of liquid salt water lies under the frozen nitrogen. http://news.mit.edu/2015/new-horizons-d ... ocean-0729

Thank you for this MIT link. I can go along with an "ocean" under the ice layer. It is most likely that if there is a liquid ocean, then there is a separation filled with atmospheric gases between the ocean and ice. It could be 100 meters to 1 km or more. So it is not the case that the ice layer would be close enough to the ocean for waves to lick the bottom of it, much less put pressure on it.

On the other hand, it is hard to see how a small moon-like object could maintain high enough temperatures needed for liquid ocean when it has been constantly in a setting of temperatures close to absolute zero (Kelvin scale) for a long time. In statistical mechanics (physics), the idea is that the random kinetic motion associated with temperature "travels" from hot to cold. So we would expect any warmth from the center to eventually seep out towards the surface of the ice layer where it is -229 degrees Celsius.

Alohascope wrote: Like earth's moon Pluto's moons cause tides and currents which cause waves in Pluto's ocean.
Those waves move in straight lines and curved lines both towards and out from the ice mountainshttp://www.coastal.udel.edu/ngs/waves.html

Pluto and Charon constantly present the same face to each other, which is unlike Earth and the Moon. The part of the Earth's surface that faces the Moon changes; thus, the bulge that the Moon causes travels across the surface of the globe along with the Moon. [Refer to the Wikipedia article on "Tide".] This does not happen with Pluto and Charon, and the other moons of Plato are not big enough to cause the effect that you propose.

The ice layer acts as a kind of thermal layer to contain any available heat underneath. So if the ocean was in liquid form at the time your proposed phenomenon occurred --- which is a big if --- there would be no storms to create the waves you propose, as well as no tides. There just are not the mechanisms to cause a wave refraction pattern on the scale that you propose. (or at least none identified so far)

Alohascope wrote:According to different elevations of rock or whatever lies on the bottom of the saltwater ocean the height of the waves create pressure, more or less, on the bottom surface of the frozen nitrogen. That pressure plus the relative warmth of the salt water creates warmth in the frozen nitrogen, and as in heat from a frying pan heating pancake batter releases bubbles of carbon dioxide, the pits are melted pockets of nitrogen which 'pop' open into pits.

I think that your idea here is interesting. So the warmth below the ice layer somehow causes pockets of gas to migrate to the outer surface where it finally escapes into space leaving behind a pock mark. I think we'd have to look at the physics of pancake bubbles to understand whether such a phenomenon could apply to Pluto's ice. Did you know that scientists study gas bubbles in old ice on Earth in order to learn about the ancient atmosphere? So what we are used to is bubbles staying trapped in ice even if warmth is introduced nearby.

It seemed in the thread for Dec 14, that you wanted some feedback. I hope that this helps.

I wish you would be more respectful to Geckzilla, Chris P. and Nitpicker. We are fortunate to get their attention at all. And I have found them to be very fair. Please do not vent your frustration. This forum is more accomodating then it could be. Please keep in mind that time is a precious, scarce resource for all participants and there are so many competing demands for it (a person's time).

On another note, if you enjoy thinking about alternate theories, maybe you'd like to check out mine. It is presented via a booklet "The Birth of the Earth" available on Amazon and there is a place for discussion via a blog on ContinentalCataclysm.com/birthoftheearth

Pianosorplanets wrote: I will offer up one speculation. If outgassing of the nitrogen managed to reduce the hard surface these low temperature tend to produce, I suppose it is possible that, as Pluto orbited, an area less firm having been weakened by sublimation crossed a field of objects of unknown size caught in Pluto's way as it made its way around the sun. Like our Leonids as we pass through the bits of Temple/Tuttle but likely considerably larger. That would account for a mass of small, tightly congested craters. But I don't believe this formulation could take place as described unless that lake of harder than rock, frozen nitrogen had sublimated until it had become somewhat fragile first.

I agree with you, Pianosorplanets, that objects small enough to make craters the size of the pits would just slide off with no impact marks if the surface was fully frozen.

I like ngc1535's idea.

ngc1535 wrote:The pits remind me of snow in grass or small thin plants that stick up. When the sun comes out- each stem develops a pit/hole surrounding it due to slight extra warmth the planet gained from the sunlight due to the difference in albedo (being darker than the snow). So... maybe there are small slightly darker things on the surface that absorb just a bit more feeble sunlight and cause the pits.

My favorite theory of solar-system formation [Mass Vortex Theory] includes a Killer Crash between a recently formed planet Illo and newly-forming planet Smithereens [Smithereens becoming the Asteroid Belt]. I believe that Illo made a glancing blow to one of its moons (Pluto) and deposited some debris during this event. Some small dark rocks from Illo could have scattered over the ice; then the darker albedo of these rocks caused them to heat up and sink, creating the pits. And the splatter from the impact would explain why some of them are more trough-like. The friction from the glancing impact and the impact itself would cause the "fragile" state of the ice according to Pianosorplanets' wisdom.

The geometric shapes on the ice in Sputnik Planum are indicative of the ice being partially broken and then refreezing. Pictures:
>>>https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitch ... H5-hEogws/
>>>http://www.latimes.com/science/la-la-na ... photo.html
>>>https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_fabulous/5455430949

Sputnik Planum sort of looks slightly indented in this image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_P ... 150917.jpg

It would make sense that the small rocks skidding over the ice would tend to collect in the depressions between broken pieces.

Regarding the absence of craters
Mass Vortex Theory also explains that the "heavy bombardment" that happened early in the solar system's history (affecting the Moon as noted above) occurred during the final stage of the Sun's formation. So if Charon was between the Sun and Pluto, then the Sputnik Planum side would be protected from the bombardment, since it would be facing away from the Sun. Furthermore, material ejected from the Sun during formation would be retarded by the Sun's gravity by the time it reached the Kuiper Belt; so this would make the nature of impact craters a little different for both Charon and Pluto versus astronomical objects closer to the Sun. (The current paradigm for solar-system formation has the sun forming first, but not so in Mass Vortex Theory.)

sallyseaver wrote:I agree with you, Pianosorplanets, that objects small enough to make craters the size of the pits would just slide off with no impact marks if the surface was fully frozen.

The lowest possible speed a body can impact Pluto at is 1200 m/s (and statistically, most impactors will be moving faster than that). Nothing striking at that speed, with that much energy, just "slides off".

sallyseaver wrote:My favorite theory of solar-system formation [Mass Vortex Theory] includes a Killer Crash between a recently formed planet Illo and newly-forming planet Smithereens [Smithereens becoming the Asteroid Belt].

Regardless of the details of Solar System formation, the asteroid belt is, without doubt, not the product of collisions. It is extremely well understood in terms of material that failed to coalesce into planets due to orbital resonances with the gas giants. And structurally, the material does not show the kind of shock effects we'd see from a planet-scale collision. And, of course, the entire asteroid belt consists of only a tiny amount of material- no more than a very small planetary satellite.

Chris Peterson wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:I agree with you, Pianosorplanets, that objects small enough to make craters the size of the pits would just slide off with no impact marks if the surface was fully frozen.

The lowest possible speed a body can impact Pluto at is 1200 m/s (and statistically, most impactors will be moving faster than that). Nothing striking at that speed, with that much energy, just "slides off".

Point taken. I am interested to knowing why 1200 m/s is the lowest possible impactor speed. Can you fill in the thinking behind this or direct me to a resource?

Chris Peterson wrote:[

sallyseaver wrote:My favorite theory of solar-system formation [Mass Vortex Theory] includes a Killer Crash between a recently formed planet Illo and newly-forming planet Smithereens [Smithereens becoming the Asteroid Belt].

Regardless of the details of Solar System formation, the asteroid belt is, without doubt, not the product of collisions. It is extremely well understood in terms of material that failed to coalesce into planets due to orbital resonances with the gas giants. And structurally, the material does not show the kind of shock effects we'd see from a planet-scale collision. And, of course, the entire asteroid belt consists of only a tiny amount of material- no more than a very small planetary satellite.

Thank you for filling me in on how the Sun-First Theory accounts for the asteroid belt. Coming from a Sun-First point of view, I can see why scientists would think in terms of many collisions, but Mass Vortex Theory posits a single collision as well as a different planet-formation mechanism than Sun-First Theory. Having only a fraction of the original protoplanet's mass near the site of the Crash makes a lot of sense.

Due to the conservation of momentum, a substantial percentage of the original protoplanet's mass would continue to move with velocity in the opposite direction to it's original velocity. This means chunks of material would move back towards the center of the system, possibly being absorbed by one or more of the inner planets or back in to the Parent Vortex. Thus, the mass of the Asteroid Belt affirms Mass Vortex Theory.

A more compelling reason for why the asteroid belt is not due to a collision - according to scientists - is the different chemical composition between asteroids. However, the science community's assumption is of a fully formed planet being broken into pieces. Mass Vortex Theory [MVT] puts forward the idea that it is a protoplanet in the throes of becoming a planet runs into a fully formed planet. In this scenario, the differentiation between asteroid composition is similar to the differentiation between layers of a forming planet: silicate-rich (contributions to crust), carbonaceous (contributions to mantle), and metal-rich (contribution to core). The compaction of the planet was interrupted so that the layers did not get to fully form. Thus, observations showing remnants that are consistent with layer differentiation is a confirmation of the MVT planet formation process.

I conclude that observations of the Asteroid Belt as it is today (mass and chemical differentiation) affirm Mass Vortex Theory. ...and in the context of MVT, the fully formed planet that the protoplanet crashed into could have than had a glancing impact with one of its moons which became Pluto.

sallyseaver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:The lowest possible speed a body can impact Pluto at is 1200 m/s (and statistically, most impactors will be moving faster than that). Nothing striking at that speed, with that much energy, just "slides off".

Point taken. I am interested to knowing why 1200 m/s is the lowest possible impactor speed. Can you fill in the thinking behind this or direct me to a resource?

That's the surface escape velocity for Pluto, which is also the speed a body will impact falling freely onto the surface- technically starting at zero speed from an infinite distance, but that's also very close to the minimum speed for any body in solar orbit.