Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

Alohascope wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:I'm not all that interested in convincing you. My point remains. There's absolutely nothing wrong with speculation and with using known processes and landforms for comparison. But once I hear those comparisons overused to the point that someone is certain about what they're seeing on Pluto or some outer moon, I'm pretty sure I'm also seeing someone who's going to be eating their words in a few years.

"There's absolutely nothing wrong with speculation"? then why aren't speculative theories allowed discussion on this forum?

The sort of "speculative theories" that are discouraged or prohibited from conversation here are generally those which have already been discounted by the mainstream scientific community as false or very likely to be false. That's very different from speculation about whether some structure observed in planetary imagery was formed by impact or flow, for example.

Snow drifts on the ice slabs .. snowfall on the mountains. That is OBVIOUS.

I would not use that word. I've seen too many apparently obvious explanations of planetary landforms change over the years.

I WOULD and DO use that word.

There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false. However, those scientists and views are not permitted a voice here, but I will not give quick reason for Geck to ban me but posting urls supporting my statement as 'I have been warned already.'

Alohascope wrote:
There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false. However, those scientists and views are not permitted a voice here, but I will not give quick reason for Geck to ban me but posting urls supporting my statement as 'I have been warned already.'

You will not get banned for posting urls supporting your statement if they are from mainstream science, but you can get banned for discussing moderator's actions in the open forum.

Alohascope wrote:There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false.

No, not so much.

bystander wrote:

Alohascope wrote:
There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false. However, those scientists and views are not permitted a voice here, but I will not give quick reason for Geck to ban me but posting urls supporting my statement as 'I have been warned already.'

You will not get banned for posting urls supporting your statement if they are from mainstream science, but you can get banned for discussing moderator's actions in the open forum.

We don't have any other option given the lack of user account, hence why guest accounts get banned so much more easily because it is impossible to communicate with their users in an non-disruptive manner.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Alohascope wrote:There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false.

No, not so much.

Yes, very, very much. But urls to prove that have been removed.

geckzilla wrote:

bystander wrote:

Alohascope wrote:
There are many mainstream scientists who differ with your opinion, Chris, about what is false or likely to be false. However, those scientists and views are not permitted a voice here, but I will not give quick reason for Geck to ban me but posting urls supporting my statement as 'I have been warned already.'

You will not get banned for posting urls supporting your statement if they are from mainstream science, but you can get banned for discussing moderator's actions in the open forum.

We don't have any other option given the lack of user account, hence why guest accounts get banned so much more easily because it is impossible to communicate with their users in an non-disruptive manner.

Then we cannot discuss anything except simple basics, such as my explanation for the pits on the 'plains' of Pluto, which Geckzilla is familiar with. But I will not become a member of a forum which is tightly closed to open discussion.

Alohascope wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

bystander wrote:
You will not get banned for posting urls supporting your statement if they are from mainstream science, but you can get banned for discussing moderator's actions in the open forum.

We don't have any other option given the lack of user account, hence why guest accounts get banned so much more easily because it is impossible to communicate with their users in an non-disruptive manner.

Then we cannot discuss anything except simple basics, such as my explanation for the pits on the 'plains' of Pluto, which Geckzilla is familiar with. But I will not become a member of a forum which is tightly closed to open discussion.

For those who may have missed it: 2015 November 25: Unusual Pits Discovered on Pluto .... my experience surfing gave me clues to what became a very simple solution.

Alohascope wrote:Neufer you seem to support my idea .. but radioactive decay is not necessary if biologic activity thrives .. bacteria can create heat. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC213537/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/slide ... lide-show/

In those two examples, the bacteria were feeding on (1) sugar, and (2) oil. What are the chances of finding those on Pluto?

Alohascope wrote:Then we cannot discuss anything except simple basics, such as my explanation for the pits on the 'plains' of Pluto, which Geckzilla is familiar with. But I will not become a member of a forum which is tightly closed to open discussion.

The rules are here to push back against the tyranny of those who think that if we do not agree that going in circles over long debunked pseudoscience and myths is productive then we must not have open minds. Such arguments held many threads in this forum in a constant state of disarray. It was a complete mess where no one could learn a thing because we were too busy trying to tell one individual or another that aliens didn't shoot laser beams in an ancient war to create chains of craters, or that the best evidence we have supports Big Bang theory, or that general relativity works, or that global warming is a real thing... it goes on and on. It's not going to happen here. We're never going there again. This form of "open discussion" is our oppression. Move on.

It's obvious that people who post simple observations for discussion get ignored, whereas those who post fully fledged theories that explain them get all the attention.
Being of the first sort, may I repeat my observation to save anyone going back three pages? I said:

In the Planum, there are three dark marks ON what might be fractures. One has a a plume deposit to the right of it, so they all might be existing or past vents. One more mark is in the centre of a 'floe' between fractures (the one looking a tiny bit like North America, next to the 'shoreline')
Between the 'floes', along the fractures are what appear to be dunes, possibly condensed vent gases?

As we look to the left of the picture, behind the Montes, is an area of more finely broken terrain, some lesser montes and then an area that is less definable. There, I can see a large crater a the upper margin, three small craters in the middle and two larger craters at the lower margin. All are irregular and oval in outline, so they are most unlikely to be impact craters. Possibly vents, or 'pit craters' like sink holes, after material has vented leaving a void.

Of course, I could say that the plume must be from Santa Claus' chimney, and that the craters are due to a colony of White Rabbits, but that would be joking.

What do others think of these features?
John

JohnD wrote:It's obvious that people who post simple observations for discussion get ignored, whereas those who post fully fledged theories that explain them get all the attention.
Being of the first sort, may I repeat my observation to save anyone going back three pages? I said:

In the Planum, there are three dark marks ON what might be fractures. One has a a plume deposit to the right of it, so they all might be existing or past vents. One more mark is in the centre of a 'floe' between fractures (the one looking a tiny bit like North America, next to the 'shoreline')
Between the 'floes', along the fractures are what appear to be dunes, possibly condensed vent gases?

As we look to the left of the picture, behind the Montes, is an area of more finely broken terrain, some lesser montes and then an area that is less definable. There, I can see a large crater a the upper margin, three small craters in the middle and two larger craters at the lower margin. All are irregular and oval in outline, so they are most unlikely to be impact craters. Possibly vents, or 'pit craters' like sink holes, after material has vented leaving a void.

Of course, I could say that the plume must be from Santa Claus' chimney, and that the craters are due to a colony of White Rabbits, but that would be joking.

What do others think of these features?
John

Hi John – I probably can't answer your question but I might suggest a way to point out the areas which you would like discussed. I have, on occasion, saved the full APOD then re-opened it with Microsoft Paint. At that point you are free to add arrows or circle objects in the image. See attached as an example. It depends which editable programs you might have available on your computer. Paint is fairly common. I'd like to understand which details you are describing.
I'm not sure if APOD has issues with using their images but if it is for legitimate discussion - I wouldn't think it would cause flack. Ron

[img][/img]

Ah! Of course! I remember now! Thank you, Ron!
Yes, do it in Paint, not Word (which allows you to add 'shapes').
(Click on it it to see the full sized version.)

On this wider JPL version of the pic:
Black ovals are marks ON fissures. I've left the mark with a plume unmarked - it's in the centre of the three.
Green oval on a mark in the middle of a 'floe'.
Orange ovals on craters (better 'pits'?) in the landscape beyond the Montes.

Thanks again! Picture worth a thousand words, Grasshopper.
John

MarkBour wrote:

Alohascope wrote:Neufer you seem to support my idea .. but radioactive decay is not necessary if biologic activity thrives .. bacteria can create heat. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC213537/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/slide ... lide-show/

In those two examples, the bacteria were feeding on (1) sugar, and (2) oil. What are the chances of finding those on Pluto?

The chance is 100% there are hydrocarbons on Pluto ..http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedormin ... rbon-soot/ The chance is probably 100% there are sugars on Pluto, in the form of algae and other growth in the oceans, similar to what is probably a 100% chance of sugars on Europa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon) On Europa, the seafloor is being shot to the surface in geyers .. where there is mud and heat, there WILL be life.

There is bacteria even where there is no mud in the film between glaciers miles deep and the rock the glaciers are sitting on. http://www.livescience.com/19123-bacteria-live-ice.html

JohnD wrote:It's obvious that people who post simple observations for discussion get ignored, whereas those who post fully fledged theories that explain them get all the attention.
Being of the first sort, may I repeat my observation to save anyone going back three pages? I said:

In the Planum, there are three dark marks ON what might be fractures. One has a a plume deposit to the right of it, so they all might be existing or past vents. One more mark is in the centre of a 'floe' between fractures (the one looking a tiny bit like North America, next to the 'shoreline')
Between the 'floes', along the fractures are what appear to be dunes, possibly condensed vent gases?

As we look to the left of the picture, behind the Montes, is an area of more finely broken terrain, some lesser montes and then an area that is less definable. There, I can see a large crater a the upper margin, three small craters in the middle and two larger craters at the lower margin. All are irregular and oval in outline, so they are most unlikely to be impact craters. Possibly vents, or 'pit craters' like sink holes, after material has vented leaving a void.

Of course, I could say that the plume must be from Santa Claus' chimney, and that the craters are due to a colony of White Rabbits, but that would be joking.

What do others think of these features?
John

John .. your pits or vent craters: Pluto is obviously super active geologically. Ice volcanoes are common on earth and known by almost anyone who has lived near the coastline of a large lake which freezes in winter .. why not Pluto? Isee glaciers in the Pluto images, ice glaciers tonguing into/onto the sea of nitrogen.

geckzilla wrote:

Alohascope wrote:Then we cannot discuss anything except simple basics, such as my explanation for the pits on the 'plains' of Pluto, which Geckzilla is familiar with. But I will not become a member of a forum which is tightly closed to open discussion.

The rules are here to push back against the tyranny of those who think that if we do not agree that going in circles over long debunked pseudoscience and myths is productive then we must not have open minds. Such arguments held many threads in this forum in a constant state of disarray. It was a complete mess where no one could learn a thing because we were too busy trying to tell one individual or another that aliens didn't shoot laser beams in an ancient war to create chains of craters, or that the best evidence we have supports Big Bang theory, or that general relativity works, or that global warming is a real thing... it goes on and on. It's not going to happen here. We're never going there again. This form of "open discussion" is our oppression. Move on.

Geckzilla .. This will be my last word on this issue .. moderators simply could have not responded to those who presented what they consider pseudoscience instead of arguing. That would leave those who do NOT consider areas of what you consider pseudoscience free to discuss what they do NOT consider pseudoscience. An alternative .. open an area for what you DO consider pseudoscience in the chance it may prove in time to BE science, and let the persuasions persuade, without moderators bothering themselves over what is and what is NOT science or pseudoscience. Surely NASA's servers can handle that little increase in traffic.
P.S. Forums which you might consider pseudoscience forums have their own moderators to dictate what is and what is not pseudoscience, so suggesting a person go to those forums is not an alternative IF an open discussion is to he held. Just saying. Free speech is a valuable thing. Who knows what advances NASA could make through open discussion?

Aloha Aloha,

One could pick a web forum out of a hat and find a great place to discuss pseudoscience. But The Starship has said no to that, and it sends dissenters out the airlock (after fair warning).

JohnD wrote:
On this wider JPL version of the pic:
Black ovals are marks ON fissures. I've left the mark with a plume unmarked - it's in the centre of the three.
Green oval on a mark in the middle of a 'floe'.
Orange ovals on craters (better 'pits'?) in the landscape beyond the Montes.

Thanks again! Picture worth a thousand words, Grasshopper.
John

Good questions, John. I wish I was better able to answer your questions. But let's concentrate on a few things:
There are things going on in the fissures between the segments of Sputnik Planum. Some fissures are more active than others. My impression is that we are seeing material from below the icy surface leaking through the fissures in places. The process might be slightly similar to the Tiger Stripes of Enceladus. And a landscape where dark material comes out of the ice cover is reminiscent of what is going on on one of Jupiter's moon, Europa. And don't forget the abrupt landscape change and dark vents of Triton, moon of Neptune.

Unfortunately I have no idea exactly what the processes are that cause these phenomena. I'll say one thing, though. We are talking about icy bodies of a kind that don't exist in the inner solar system. It seems probable to me that icy bodies react differently than ice-poor rocky ones, like our own Moon, for example.

Ann

Ann wrote:

JohnD wrote:
On this wider JPL version of the pic:
Black ovals are marks ON fissures. I've left the mark with a plume unmarked - it's in the centre of the three.
Green oval on a mark in the middle of a 'floe'.
Orange ovals on craters (better 'pits'?) in the landscape beyond the Montes.

Thanks again! Picture worth a thousand words, Grasshopper.
John

Good questions, John. I wish I was better able to answer your questions. But let's concentrate on a few things:

Click to view full size image

There are things going on in the fissures between the segments of Sputnik Planum. Some fissures are more active than others. My impression is that we are seeing material from below the icy surface leaking through the fissures in places. The process might be slightly similar to the Tiger Stripes of Enceladus. And a landscape where dark material comes out of the ice cover is reminiscent of what is going on on one of Jupiter's moon, Europa. And don't forget the abrupt landscape change and dark vents of Triton, moon of Neptune.

Unfortunately I have no idea exactly what the processes are that cause these phenomena. I'll say one thing, though. We are talking about icy bodies of a kind that don't exist in the inner solar system. It seems probable to me that icy bodies react differently than ice-poor rocky ones, like our own Moon, for example.

Ann

Present temperatures and historical context are the major difference between earth, venus, mars and those outer icy bodies with oceans beneath the ice.
According to overwhelming paleontolgic evidence our planet was once covered by ocean .. the same is possible for Mars .. and Venus has rock which is said to have been formed only one way, underwater. Even the moon has so much water NASA is devising ways to 'mine' it.
Mars: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... n-on-mars/
Venus: https://www.insidescience.org/content/t ... venus/1536
Earth: Paleontology suggests all rocks now above the ocean were once beneath the ocean. http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Ever ... verest.htm
Moon: http://www.space.com/27388-nasa-moon-mi ... water.html
Paleontolgy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

I've never really felt I could begin to understand a place, until I'd been there for at least a year.

I've been finding all these New Horizons images of Pluto, over just the last few months, fascinating and mysterious in equal parts. The images and data, acquired over a period of just minutes, from a planet that takes ~250 Earth years to orbit the Sun, are so startling and fresh and not quite what anyone was expecting. So, I cannot bring myself to draw very many conclusions at all. I feel like New Horizons has, so far, just scratched the surface of a very complex new puzzle to solve over the coming centuries.

Nitpicker wrote:I've never really felt I could begin to understand a place, until I'd been there for at least a year.

I've been finding all these New Horizons images of Pluto, over just the last few months, fascinating and mysterious in equal parts. The images and data, acquired over a period of just minutes, from a planet that takes ~250 Earth years to orbit the Sun, are so startling and fresh and not quite what anyone was expecting. So, I cannot bring myself to draw very many conclusions at all. I feel like New Horizons has, so far, just scratched the surface of a very complex new puzzle to solve over the coming centuries.

There are places on earth man has not yet been. What more is to be found here beneath the sea .. and in caverns not yet found?

Alohascope wrote:
Present temperatures and historical context are the major difference between earth, venus, mars and those outer icy bodies with oceans beneath the ice.

You didn't quite get my point there, Alohascope.

My point is that the bodies of the inner solar system are poor in ices (and liquids). The moons and minor planets of the outer solar system are typically rich in ices.

Therefore we can't look at a rocky body like the Earth and just assume that it will react in the same way as the icy body of Pluto.

Ann

Alohascope wrote:There are places on earth man has not yet been. What more is to be found here beneath the sea .. and in caverns not yet found?

Sure, Aloha, we don't fully understand the Earth yet, either, but we've been doing it for much longer and there's a lot more data and we have a much better understanding of Earth, than we do of Pluto. Nothing is ever perfect, yet we continue to strive.

Ann wrote:

Click to view full size image

Alohascope wrote:
Present temperatures and historical context are the major difference between earth, venus, mars and those outer icy bodies with oceans beneath the ice.

You didn't quite get my point there, Alohascope.

My point is that the bodies of the inner solar system are poor in ices (and liquids). The moons and minor planets of the outer solar system are typically rich in ices.

Therefore we can't look at a rocky body like the Earth and just assume that it will react in the same way as the icy body of Pluto.

Ann

It appears Earth is not a rocky body, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/1 ... 91692.html Three times as much water there as in all the oceans.

Plus one more little source additional source: "Brazilian scientists have found a new river in the Amazon basin – around 4km underneath the Amazon river. The Rio Hamza, named after the head of the team of researchers who found the groundwater flow, appears to be as long as the Amazon river but up to hundreds of times wider." http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ver-amazon

Those two sources are recent discoveries .. as man's search for oil increases, penetrating new territory with new technology, many more will be found. What lies beneath the antarctic continent for instance? If earth's centrifugal force spins water to the surface, then the poles will be loaded with water beneath the oceans and mantle. We have to realize that what we learned in school lags tremendously .. ages .. behind new findings.

Alohascope wrote:
It appears Earth is not a rocky body, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/1 ... 91692.html Three times as much water there as in all the oceans.

That's still only a tiny percentage of Earth's total mass.

Alohascope wrote:It appears Earth is not a rocky body...

It most certainly is, beyond any doubt.