APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
Yes, it will be. One more peep out of you on the matter and that's it. I'm tired of dealing with your guest account publicly.Alohascope wrote:Geckzilla .. This will be my last word on this issue ..
Terrestrial ice volcanoes - never heard of them, so I searched, and every single hit is from a shoreline. as you say. But these are what I would call 'ice blowholes', where the action of waves in the sea/lake force water and air into closed channels. That needs a liquid, and I don't think Pluto has any of that, on the surface anyway, and the morphology of those blowholes is quite different from what we see on Pluto. Extraterrestrial "Ice volcanoes", AKA cryovolcanoes, are a feature of icy moons, like Pluto, but comparison with those would be more useful than icy blowholes on Earth. At least two, Piccard Mons and Wright Mons, have been tentatively identified on Pluto, but they are massive, shaped and sized like Olympus Mons on Mars, with a central depression, rather than a crater. Much smaller versions occur in the Terrestrial tundra, pingoes or ice lenses, that are the same shape.ALohascope wrote:=
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.
workgazer wrote:
hi a bit off tangent, but Last night 2001 a space odyssey showed in the uk (i know we are behind the times). In the opening scenes the camera pans over brown mountains and looks out on a plain with large (cracks) in it, it was as if i was flying over this very APOD, any one else noticed this?
I take it you did not bother to read either the link or the further links about how much water is now proven to be in the earth .. with much, much more to be revealed in the next few years of exploration by oil companies.Chris Peterson wrote:It most certainly is, beyond any doubt.Alohascope wrote:It appears Earth is not a rocky body...
John, did you read my solution for 2015 November 25: Unusual Pits Discovered on Pluto? There are liquid ocean waves beneath the frozen nitrogen surface plains on Pluto .. the waves generated by the tides of the moons and motions of Pluto around that system's central gravitational point. The pits are melted by the heat of those waves, from beneath, my first clue being the poster who compared the pits to pancakes pitted by heat from below .. the same action, warming of gas creating a bubble which opens on the surface. The pits on occasion can and certainly must melt through from bottom to top .. allowing the waves to gush upwards through the holes which had been pits, building ice volcanoes. Every cosmologist on earth must wish deeply we had a Pluto orbiter.JohnD wrote:Terrestrial ice volcanoes - never heard of them, so I searched, and every single hit is from a shoreline. as you say. But these are what I would call 'ice blowholes', where the action of waves in the sea/lake force water and air into closed channels. That needs a liquid, and I don't think Pluto has any of that, on the surface anyway, and the morphology of those blowholes is quite different from what we see on Pluto. Extraterrestrial "Ice volcanoes", AKA cryovolcanoes, are a feature of icy moons, like Pluto, but comparison with those would be more useful than icy blowholes on Earth. At least two, Piccard Mons and Wright Mons, have been tentatively identified on Pluto, but they are massive, shaped and sized like Olympus Mons on Mars, with a central depression, rather than a crater. Much smaller versions occur in the Terrestrial tundra, pingoes or ice lenses, that are the same shape.ALohascope wrote:=
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.
But an example on Earth is available. In the Siberian tundra, odd craters that are associated with high levels of methane are seen. See: http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/14/photos-s ... blowholes/ The features include an irregular outline and a steep-sided shaft with gently sloping edges - exactly as seen in the far larger items on Pluto - those I ringed in orange.
But Pluto "is obviously super-active geologically"? Not unless you have the attention span of a god. The Moon's surface was mostly formed in the Late Heavy Bombardment, over 4 billion years ago. Pluto's surface shows no classic craters, none at all, so is younger than that. The Planum must be youngest of all, and if that plume is real, then it is, or has been, active in the geological recent. Whether that is as recent as, say, Martian plumes which continue, and may be seasonal, we cannot say as yet.
Anne,
Thank you for the pic that shows vastly more objects on the cracks between floes. Are they objects or vents? An Earthly analogue might be the accumulation of stones around ice wedges, polygons, in tundral soil, forming patterned ground, seen on both Earth and Mars: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2002/06/patterned-ground.html
John
http://www.earthlearningidea.com/PDF/47_Mudcracks.pdf I've seen mud cracks in the U.S. southwest desert areas which are a couple of feet wide .. this after a mere year of dryness .. how much wider can mudcracks be after a century or centuries of lack of rainfall (or virtually non-existant rainfall.) What cracks lie beneath the sands of the Sahara, for instance, which was well watered with lakes and rivers before Africa split from America. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/v ... ara-desert However, Pluto's plains are frozen notrogen .. and here are some fantastic images. https://www.google.com/search?q=Pluto+s ... 40&bih=799neufer wrote:workgazer wrote:
hi a bit off tangent, but Last night 2001 a space odyssey showed in the uk (i know we are behind the times). In the opening scenes the camera pans over brown mountains and looks out on a plain with large (cracks) in it, it was as if i was flying over this very APOD, any one else noticed this?
I know about the water that may be in the mantle, as hydrated minerals. It represents an insignificantly small percentage of the Earth's materials.Alohascope wrote:I take it you did not bother to read either the link or the further links about how much water is now proven to be in the earth .. with much, much more to be revealed in the next few years of exploration by oil companies.Chris Peterson wrote:It most certainly is, beyond any doubt.Alohascope wrote:It appears Earth is not a rocky body...
Please read the url .. it says there is three times as much water in one specific kind of rock beneath the surface as there is in the world's oceans. That is just ONE area of water not previously known.Chris Peterson wrote:I know about the water that may be in the mantle, as hydrated minerals. It represents an insignificantly small percentage of the Earth's materials.Alohascope wrote:I take it you did not bother to read either the link or the further links about how much water is now proven to be in the earth .. with much, much more to be revealed in the next few years of exploration by oil companies.Chris Peterson wrote: It most certainly is, beyond any doubt.
John .. https://www.google.com/search?q=Pluto+s ... dooLOOM%3A The centre looks far more like a vent than a depression .. with similar vents nearby.JohnD wrote:Terrestrial ice volcanoes - never heard of them, so I searched, and every single hit is from a shoreline. as you say. But these are what I would call 'ice blowholes', where the action of waves in the sea/lake force water and air into closed channels. That needs a liquid, and I don't think Pluto has any of that, on the surface anyway, and the morphology of those blowholes is quite different from what we see on Pluto. Extraterrestrial "Ice volcanoes", AKA cryovolcanoes, are a feature of icy moons, like Pluto, but comparison with those would be more useful than icy blowholes on Earth. At least two, Piccard Mons and Wright Mons, have been tentatively identified on Pluto, but they are massive, shaped and sized like Olympus Mons on Mars, with a central depression, rather than a crater. Much smaller versions occur in the Terrestrial tundra, pingoes or ice lenses, that are the same shape.ALohascope wrote:=
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.
But an example on Earth is available. In the Siberian tundra, odd craters that are associated with high levels of methane are seen. See: http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/14/photos-s ... blowholes/ The features include an irregular outline and a steep-sided shaft with gently sloping edges - exactly as seen in the far larger items on Pluto - those I ringed in orange.
But Pluto "is obviously super-active geologically"? Not unless you have the attention span of a god. The Moon's surface was mostly formed in the Late Heavy Bombardment, over 4 billion years ago. Pluto's surface shows no classic craters, none at all, so is younger than that. The Planum must be youngest of all, and if that plume is real, then it is, or has been, active in the geological recent. Whether that is as recent as, say, Martian plumes which continue, and may be seasonal, we cannot say as yet.
Anne,
Thank you for the pic that shows vastly more objects on the cracks between floes. Are they objects or vents? An Earthly analogue might be the accumulation of stones around ice wedges, polygons, in tundral soil, forming patterned ground, seen on both Earth and Mars: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2002/06/patterned-ground.html
John
It is not entirely unexpected, as there have long been uncertainties about subducted water. Multiplying the amount of water on Earth by three or four times still means that water is an insignificant component of Earth's makeup. That isn't going to change. We do know that water is a minor constituent. Earth is, without doubt, a stony planet.Alohascope wrote:Please read the url .. it says there is three times as much water in one specific kind of rock beneath the surface as there is in the world's oceans. That is just ONE area of water not previously known.Chris Peterson wrote:I know about the water that may be in the mantle, as hydrated minerals. It represents an insignificantly small percentage of the Earth's materials.
Still not reading the information or looking at the graphs. But suit yourself.Chris Peterson wrote:It is not entirely unexpected, as there have long been uncertainties about subducted water. Multiplying the amount of water on Earth by three or four times still means that water is an insignificant component of Earth's makeup. That isn't going to change. We do know that water is a minor constituent. Earth is, without doubt, a stony planet.Alohascope wrote:Please read the url .. it says there is three times as much water in one specific kind of rock beneath the surface as there is in the world's oceans. That is just ONE area of water not previously known.Chris Peterson wrote:I know about the water that may be in the mantle, as hydrated minerals. It represents an insignificantly small percentage of the Earth's materials.
Please explain how an amount of water equal to several times the volume of the ocean represents more than a trace component of Earth's composition. None of the links you posted suggest otherwise.Alohascope wrote:Still not reading the information or looking at the graphs. But suit yourself.Chris Peterson wrote:It is not entirely unexpected, as there have long been uncertainties about subducted water. Multiplying the amount of water on Earth by three or four times still means that water is an insignificant component of Earth's makeup. That isn't going to change. We do know that water is a minor constituent. Earth is, without doubt, a stony planet.Alohascope wrote: Please read the url .. it says there is three times as much water in one specific kind of rock beneath the surface as there is in the world's oceans. That is just ONE area of water not previously known.
JohnD .. You appear not to have read my solution for Apod 2015 November 25: Unusual Pits Discovered on Pluto. If you read the solution, and both view and read the urls, you may see and understand the effect and shape of ocean waves beneath the pitted nitrogen shell, those waves refracted from the ice mountain coastline. If you don't want to read and view, suit yourself, go to the ocean and surf, you will come to have a greater or lesser understanding of oceanic waves, depending on how much time you spend surfing .. how much time you spend on lookouts studying the ocean on the shore and headlands below. However, there is a simple diagram in the urls which can help you understand as well, especially when compared to the lines of pits along the mountainous water ice coast of Pluto.JohnD wrote:Alohascope.
" There are liquid ocean waves beneath the frozen nitrogen surface plains on Pluto" Reference please for this apparent statement from authority.
Coastal blowholes are the result of waves as they move into a sea cave and act as a piston, pushing air ahead until it blasts out of the hole in the roof of the cave. Unless there is liquid in contact with an atmosphere on Pluto, which I beg to find improbable, this won't happen. There cannot be any waves as such. Liquid under the icy surface, perhaps.
Sea blowholes can be exciting, but this sort of thing must be a great worry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhOt6bRJL7U
But I find that land blowholes exist - very large subterranean cavities with an external opening that respond to changes in atmospheric pressure, to inhale as well as exhale! See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU3YtvfciPI But will the atmospheric pressure change that much on Pluto? I doubt it.
Please tell us more theories that you have formulated while staring into space from your surfboard.
John
PS Actually, the depression on Wright Mons looks more like an umbelicus than a vent. J.
Dear oh Dear .. and I have not even used profanity. Such a one you are, John, as to confuse confidence and experience with vanity. I say "Eye" will enable you to see.JohnD wrote:May we have a democratic vote on this?
The proposal is:
Alohascope, being so full of himself and certain of his own theories to the exclusion of anyother's that no one else is allowed to differ, is to be excluded from the board.
All those in favour post, "Aye!"
John
http://www.universetoday.com/65588/what ... -is-water/ This url contains a simple demonstration of the amount of water BEFORE the most recent discoveries. ONE of those discoveries increase that liquid globe by three times. That is not a minor constituent.Chris Peterson wrote:Please explain how an amount of water equal to several times the volume of the ocean represents more than a trace component of Earth's composition. None of the links you posted suggest otherwise.Alohascope wrote:Still not reading the information or looking at the graphs. But suit yourself.Chris Peterson wrote: It is not entirely unexpected, as there have long been uncertainties about subducted water. Multiplying the amount of water on Earth by three or four times still means that water is an insignificant component of Earth's makeup. That isn't going to change. We do know that water is a minor constituent. Earth is, without doubt, a stony planet.
Furthermore John, you can disagree with me all you want, with urls or not .. with authority or not .. have your say .. I will not see it as offense. If you can provide reason for your disagreement all the better.Alohascope wrote:Dear oh Dear .. and I have not even used profanity. Such a one you are, John, as to confuse confidence and experience with vanity. I say "Eye" will enable you to see.JohnD wrote:May we have a democratic vote on this?
The proposal is:
Alohascope, being so full of himself and certain of his own theories to the exclusion of anyother's that no one else is allowed to differ, is to be excluded from the board.
All those in favour post, "Aye!"
John
Earth's moon can create waves because it creates tides, those tides creating currents which change sometimes in great chaotic disturbances which cause waves.BMAONE23 wrote:Wave action though is caused by the interaction between the gravity of the Sun and Moon, by the constantly changing location of the Moon over the Earth's surface and by wind action on the water surface. Pluto has no appreciable atmosphere and no surface liquid (at least given it's current orbital location) so mechanism 3, surface wind, won't cause wave action. Charon and Pluto always present the same face to each other. If you stood on Pluto and looked up at Charon, it would never change it's location in the sky. So the area of greatest tidal influence never changes on Pluto. This negates the second mechanism for the creation of wave action. As to the first, the relative effect of gravitational interactions between the Sun and Charon on potential liquids on Pluto. This works well on Earth because the moon orbits earth on a relatively similar plane to Earth's solar orbital plane. Currently the Pluto/Caron orbital plane is rotated almost 90deg from the solar orbital plane and alters the tidal dynamic. Though in about 60 years or so Pluto/Charon will return to a similar orbital dynamic to that of Earth & Luna.
Tides and wave action would be an extremely difficult, short lived, and unlikely source of energy on Pluto
What that image shows is that water is only a tiny fraction of the Earth's volume. And if that blob of water were four times the volume, it would increase in diameter by only 50%. It would still only represent a tiny fraction of the Earth's volume.Alohascope wrote:http://www.universetoday.com/65588/what ... -is-water/ This url contains a simple demonstration of the amount of water BEFORE the most recent discoveries. ONE of those discoveries increase that liquid globe by three times. That is not a minor constituent.
Not sure what you're taking from that. Pluto's outer moons have almost no tidal effect on Pluto or Charon.Alohascope wrote:Ah .. here's one .. please excuse the advertisement .. the animation is worth the wait. It not only shows how rough the gravitational 'tides' are, but shows how Pluto's own motion is very rough, seemingly rough enough to rough up its ocean.
http://www.space.com/31071-plutos-moons ... izons.html
