Aug 8th, 2018
I already covered age dating the small satellites by crater counts on my Far From Objective page 67.
I have not however covered age dating by crater counts as it relates to the surface of Pluto.
On this page I will attempt to address, at least in part, that point.
Kelsi Singer et al., 2016 produced a very short two page paper (released at LPSC 2016) related to Pluto and Charon and their surface ages based on impact crater populations. Kelsi Singer is the New Horizons scientists whom blatantly omitted and altered crater data related to Pluto's small satellites (see page 67) in order to suggest (in her words "prove") they were 4 byr old.
I will show how there are at least two major problems with their Pluto age dating assumption process via "impactor count". One problem comes in the form of determining whether craters identified by Kelsi and team were formed by external impacts or internal volcanic processes. In their paper they pretty much assume all craters on Pluto are formed by impacts even those craters that are volcanic or tectonic (slip faults) in nature. Since no scientists on the New Horizons team has identified real cryovolcanoes on Pluto, they naturally see all Pluto's craters as external impact processes.
I have not however covered age dating by crater counts as it relates to the surface of Pluto.
On this page I will attempt to address, at least in part, that point.
Kelsi Singer et al., 2016 produced a very short two page paper (released at LPSC 2016) related to Pluto and Charon and their surface ages based on impact crater populations. Kelsi Singer is the New Horizons scientists whom blatantly omitted and altered crater data related to Pluto's small satellites (see page 67) in order to suggest (in her words "prove") they were 4 byr old.
I will show how there are at least two major problems with their Pluto age dating assumption process via "impactor count". One problem comes in the form of determining whether craters identified by Kelsi and team were formed by external impacts or internal volcanic processes. In their paper they pretty much assume all craters on Pluto are formed by impacts even those craters that are volcanic or tectonic (slip faults) in nature. Since no scientists on the New Horizons team has identified real cryovolcanoes on Pluto, they naturally see all Pluto's craters as external impact processes.
|
Kelsi Singer et al., LPSC 2016 paper >>>>> |
| ||
Lets begin with Pluto's orbital binary partner Charon.
Quote
Charon’s informally named Vulcan Planum did experience resurfacing, but crater densities suggest this is also a relatively ancient surface. We do not observe large numbers of small craters despite adequate resolution to do so; thus the Pluto system craters are inconsistent with Kuiper belt (KB) and solar system evolution models producing large numbers of small impactors.
In a nut shell, observational reality is inconsistent with mathematical modeled fantasy (I'm not at all surprised by this).
This is my limited knowledge on how age dating via crater counting is supposed to work.
Lots of impact craters on geologically dead bodies indicate an older surface.
Fewer impacts indicate a younger surface.
Large impact craters occur less frequently than small impacts.
Large impactors are from more ancient times.
Small impactors are younger surface features.
Quote
Charon’s informally named Vulcan Planum did experience resurfacing, but crater densities suggest this is also a relatively ancient surface. We do not observe large numbers of small craters despite adequate resolution to do so; thus the Pluto system craters are inconsistent with Kuiper belt (KB) and solar system evolution models producing large numbers of small impactors.
In a nut shell, observational reality is inconsistent with mathematical modeled fantasy (I'm not at all surprised by this).
This is my limited knowledge on how age dating via crater counting is supposed to work.
Lots of impact craters on geologically dead bodies indicate an older surface.
Fewer impacts indicate a younger surface.
Large impact craters occur less frequently than small impacts.
Large impactors are from more ancient times.
Small impactors are younger surface features.
- We do not observe large numbers of small craters (the impact crater evidence says the surface is young)
- but crater densities suggest this is also a relatively ancient surface (the inference of this statement is that there is a large number of craters even though Charon's southern hemisphere is obviously younger than the north)
- the craters are inconsistent with KB models (models generate larger numbers of small impactors than what is observed and what we see does not match what our mathematical models indicate we should see.) Observational evidence does not match mathematical modeling algorithms.
|
New Horizons scientists want you to believe they can infer the age of a body's surface by counting and cataloging the sizes of its craters but the Pluto system simply does not match what their mathematical models would infer and they plainly say so.
The simple question then is, which one is wrong their math, their model, their knowledge, their assumptions or the Pluto system? Knowing their models don't portray real tangible observational evidence they plow forward with their errant assumptions, lack of knowledge, inept math and modeled view point to produce some incorrect conclusions. It doesn't bother me so much that they make mistakes as much as they act like they know what they're talking about when they don't. After admitting the craters are inconsistent with KB models they produce this chart based off their mathematical models. Here we are replacing real visual observational evidence (reality) with mathematically modeled theory (fantasy) and calling it reality. They have literally substituted reality with fantasy and called it real, why, because they are scientists and they believe their math is more real than reality itself. Look at our pretty chart, it's real, but what we observe on Pluto/Charon is not. |
|
Since their models conflicted with observational evidence they blended four different models so they could pick and choose whichever one matched what they wanted it to indicate. In their mind the Greenstreet Knee (blue solid, dash, dot dash lines) model is their best fit scenario as their data points hover closest to the Greenstreet model's 4 billion year line which is exactly what they want not what the four model's indicate. Bottom line with this modeling method is, throw a dart and pick whatever model suites your fancy since they don't match observational evidence.
|
Determining what is and isn't an impact crater is a matter of subjective interpretation.
These two maps present what these scientists consider to be the crater densities in particularly defined regions around Pluto. As a point of focus, look at the East TR region. There are 6 "identified" craters within this zone. 
|
|
|
This black chart version of the above white graph (Greenstreet Knee model) makes it a little easier to understand what they want to infer with their four in one model.
The white data line in this graph represents the 6 impacts which they identified in the East TR region and suggests these six impacts date this surface area from 200 myr to 2 byr old, (Six impacts with a date range of 1.8 byr between them). The vertical white lines are error bars, I call them slop factors as this is the range of their model's potential error. The right most white triangle has a slop factor of at least 3.5 billion years. The other interesting lines are the yellow and red which indicate these impact craters are much older than 4 billion years potentially older than the solar system itself. |
|
|
Don't you love how this works? Our models don't reflect observational evidence so here's our four models that prove Pluto's surface is 4 billion years old. Take note of the dashed horizontal line (white chart) where it displays "empirical saturation"
Empirical literally means - information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. They have already observed that the craters on Charon are inconsistent with their models but now their 4 in 1 model reflects an age dating of Pluto's surface based on empirical observation? Is it me or does something seem completely crazy about this? |
Smooth southern hemisphere of Charon to give an indication of small impact counts
I could go into a lot more detail about this but it would probably bore you so let me simply quote the below paper.
P. T. Doran et al., 2004 released a paper about age dating Martian events based on impact craters and had this to say about the process.
Currently, the absolute chronology of Martian rocks, deposits and events is based mainly on crater counting and remains
highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years.
P. T. Doran et al., 2004 released a paper about age dating Martian events based on impact craters and had this to say about the process.
Currently, the absolute chronology of Martian rocks, deposits and events is based mainly on crater counting and remains
highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years.
| mars_chronology_assessing_techniques_for_quantifying_surficial_processes.pdf |
|
On my Far From Objective page 67, I demonstrate how New Horizons scientists reporting on the age of Pluto's small satellites actually altered data away from observational reality.
They scaled their impact crater size data for the small satellites to reflect bodies covered with soft powdery regolith rather than water ice even though spectroscopic evidence proves the surfaces are water ice. The brightness (reflectance) of the small satellites is also an indicator they are young bright icy objects yet NASA scientists are perplexed by this fact since they only blindly accept that these moons are 4 byr old. 
Albedo chart comparing Pluto moons brightness to other Plutinos
Kelsi Singer took the deception of age dating the small satellites further than simply selecting the incorrect scaling factor by omitting more than half the data points in her chart to sell the expected 4 billion year age of these bodies.
|
Old bodies in our solar system have been baked by solar and cosmic radiation longer and are hence dark with average albedos of 0.04 to 0.06. Other Plutinos in the general neighborhood of the Pluto system have an average dark albedo (brightness) of 0.096 while Pluto's small moon's average bright albedos are 0.65. Pluto's small moons are almost 7 times brighter than neighboring objects. 
This image shows a comparison of how dark comet 67p (albedo = 0.06) is relative to Enceladus, Earth and our Moon
|
I corrected all of Kelsi's manipulated data points to create the below chart which demonstrates how the impacts on the small satellites suggest they are on average (based on their findings) 2.65 byr old not 4 byr. Add to that Doran's slop factor of greater than 2 byr along with the fact that Kelsi only used 3 and 11 impacts. She also removed more than half of those impacts and duplicated two of them in her age dating process. This leaves us with an age dating method for Pluto's small satellites that is completely inept at best. The impacts on the small satellites of Pluto don't say anything about their age, this is why Kelsi needed to completely falsify and alter her chart data,
|
Kelsi Singer's manipulated and falsified chart
|
Same chart with corrected (by me) data points
|
|
|
The pink diamonds are the exact same craters as the two nearby red diamonds (duplicate data) imaged by two cameras. Kelsi's chart is scaled for regolith instead of water ice and more than half the (3 & 11) data points are omitted. She also removed dozens of the green Charon data points that didn't favor her 4 byr age expectations.
In the Pluto/Charon surface crater counting paper Singer et al., produce a figure with panels a), to d) showing three different locations on Pluto comparing their impact rates.
- Scale bars are 40 km (25 miles). Each image covers about 125 miles or 200 km.
- Panel a) needs to be scrutinized (which I will do later). The Singer et al., assumption is that panel a) only displays "impact craters" not volcanic or tectonic craters. The surface in Panel a) is considered old because of the "saturation of craters".
- Panel b) is considered relatively smooth and lightly cratered in essence if this method of dating is to be believed then the surface in panel b) is not as old as the surface in panel a) by about 3 billion years.
One region on the eastern edge of Cthulhu appears quite heavily cratered (Fig. 2a), but Cthulhu also contains relatively smooth, lightly cratered areas (Fig. 2b).
Kelsi's panel a) and b) locations
Panel b) (left white box) displays a surface that closely matches the southern hemisphere surface of Charon. It has already been noted that observational evidence of Charon's southern hemisphere does not match their models (the craters are inconsistent with KB models).
Panel b) (left white box) displays a surface that closely matches the southern hemisphere surface of Charon. It has already been noted that observational evidence of Charon's southern hemisphere does not match their models (the craters are inconsistent with KB models).
|
Above are the two sections identified in panels a) and b). They are separated by about 150 miles (240 km).
Based on NASA's age dating models created from crater counting, these two area would have to be about two to three billion years different in age. That is, if you assume two of NASA's fallacies actually reflect reality.
I think it would help to repeat Doran's quote here. crater counting remains highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years. Doran did not say crater counting produces uncertainties of 2 billion years he said they produce uncertainties greater than (in excess of) 2 billion years. Two billion year uncertainties is the best case scenario. |
|
But New Horizons scientists want you to believe they have a handle on this impact crater age dating nonsense because of this chart they created by using four different mathematical algorithms which they've already said doesn't match observational evidence.
Panel b) on Pluto compared to the surface of Charon.
Panel b) on Pluto compared to the surface of Charon.
Panel b) 125 mile western section of Cthulhu Regio with increased lighting contrast
|
A 125 mile section of Charon west of zero degrees longitude
|
I increased the contrast in the panel b) image to make the impacts stand out. I then took a section of Charon about the same size and in roughly the same quadrant on Charon as is seen on Pluto in panel b) to get a relative comparison of the number of impact craters. This is the best apples to apples comparison I could get between the two. Each image display approximately 40-50 impact craters depending on what you consider a crater. Charon has more wrinkles ripples and angular fragments littering its surface with slightly more impacts. and its impacts appear on average to be slightly larger probably because its surface was softer at the time of the impacts.
Overall there is little difference between the two with a slight larger size and count difference going to Charon. Larger sized impactors are supposed to be related to an older time frame. which would suggest Charon's southern hemisphere is older than Pluto's dark red heavily tholin covered Cthulhu Region. Charon has more impacts in these images than Pluto again indicating Charon's surface is older than Pluto's yet Charon's southern hemisphere is considered younger than models suggest due to a lack of impact craters. This doesn't make sense unless Charon's younger southern hemisphere surface is displaying the results of fragments that rained down onto it after it was catastrophically disrupted which would have also taken place around the same time its surface was softer in turn creating larger craters upon impact. This scenario also aligns with the presence of angular fragments lying around. Then there is this natural question, how can Pluto's surface have fewer impacts than Charon's younger southern hemisphere?
When Pluto's sparse impacts were created, its surface was hard so its craters are smaller than on Charon. Pluto's western Cthulhu surface is presumed to be older than Charon's southern hemisphere, therefor, it should have more impact craters but instead has slightly less. Charon's southern hemisphere's craters, are generally larger which also suggests its surface is older. This doesn't make sense if you simply compare them on a time scale basis without taking into account a Charon catastrophic disruption event where chunks were ejected then settled (rained relatively quickly) back down onto the surface as the surface was hardening. Pluto's lack of impacts points to a geologically overturned bedrock surface.
Quote from Kelsi's Pluto crater paper
The active geology on Pluto has left pockets of higher and lower crater density even across these older regions. One region on the eastern edge of Cthulhu appears quite heavily cratered (Fig. 2a),
The incorrect implication in this statement is that all craters on Pluto are considered to be formed by impacts and that geological processes are either erasing them or leaving them alone. This is the single minded simple interpretation applied by Kelsi and team to all Pluto's surface crater features. The problem with this vastly incorrect assumption is that it is completely wrong to view all craters as formed by impacts on a world that is geologically active. Active geology produces thrust faults, pit chains, subduction and volcanism. Thrust faults produce pit chains with craters and subduction grinding produces subsurface heat which creates active nitrogen volcanism. Active volcanism creates craters. Craters on Pluto are not only erased by geology (Sputnik Planitia) they are also created by it (Elliot).
Panel a) is described as the one region on Pluto appearing heavily saturated with craters (yielding ages of ~4 Ga.) implying these are all impact craters and their high count volume infers old age. The problem for me with this concept is that I know better. Two years ago if I'd read this paper I would have accepted the above statement today, however, I do not.
Overall there is little difference between the two with a slight larger size and count difference going to Charon. Larger sized impactors are supposed to be related to an older time frame. which would suggest Charon's southern hemisphere is older than Pluto's dark red heavily tholin covered Cthulhu Region. Charon has more impacts in these images than Pluto again indicating Charon's surface is older than Pluto's yet Charon's southern hemisphere is considered younger than models suggest due to a lack of impact craters. This doesn't make sense unless Charon's younger southern hemisphere surface is displaying the results of fragments that rained down onto it after it was catastrophically disrupted which would have also taken place around the same time its surface was softer in turn creating larger craters upon impact. This scenario also aligns with the presence of angular fragments lying around. Then there is this natural question, how can Pluto's surface have fewer impacts than Charon's younger southern hemisphere?
When Pluto's sparse impacts were created, its surface was hard so its craters are smaller than on Charon. Pluto's western Cthulhu surface is presumed to be older than Charon's southern hemisphere, therefor, it should have more impact craters but instead has slightly less. Charon's southern hemisphere's craters, are generally larger which also suggests its surface is older. This doesn't make sense if you simply compare them on a time scale basis without taking into account a Charon catastrophic disruption event where chunks were ejected then settled (rained relatively quickly) back down onto the surface as the surface was hardening. Pluto's lack of impacts points to a geologically overturned bedrock surface.
Quote from Kelsi's Pluto crater paper
The active geology on Pluto has left pockets of higher and lower crater density even across these older regions. One region on the eastern edge of Cthulhu appears quite heavily cratered (Fig. 2a),
The incorrect implication in this statement is that all craters on Pluto are considered to be formed by impacts and that geological processes are either erasing them or leaving them alone. This is the single minded simple interpretation applied by Kelsi and team to all Pluto's surface crater features. The problem with this vastly incorrect assumption is that it is completely wrong to view all craters as formed by impacts on a world that is geologically active. Active geology produces thrust faults, pit chains, subduction and volcanism. Thrust faults produce pit chains with craters and subduction grinding produces subsurface heat which creates active nitrogen volcanism. Active volcanism creates craters. Craters on Pluto are not only erased by geology (Sputnik Planitia) they are also created by it (Elliot).
Panel a) is described as the one region on Pluto appearing heavily saturated with craters (yielding ages of ~4 Ga.) implying these are all impact craters and their high count volume infers old age. The problem for me with this concept is that I know better. Two years ago if I'd read this paper I would have accepted the above statement today, however, I do not.
On my Basins page 70, I showed how icy crustal surfaces often sink into flat plane basins near volcanically uplifted areas.
On my Nitrogen page 71, I showed how there are active cryovolcanoes along the south edge of Viking Terra
On my Pahoehoe page 83, I showed how the top crater in panel a) is a dormant cryovolcano with expelled pahoehoe lava.
On my Ethane page 100, I showed how several panel a) craters display a spectrographic signature of water ice in and around them.
Put together, all these pages of mine demonstrate how the active history of this specific area in panel a) is generated from subsurface nitrogen pressure. In order to completely understand how several of these craters were formed from internal not external processes, I will summarize these four pages.
On my Nitrogen page 71, I showed how there are active cryovolcanoes along the south edge of Viking Terra
On my Pahoehoe page 83, I showed how the top crater in panel a) is a dormant cryovolcano with expelled pahoehoe lava.
On my Ethane page 100, I showed how several panel a) craters display a spectrographic signature of water ice in and around them.
Put together, all these pages of mine demonstrate how the active history of this specific area in panel a) is generated from subsurface nitrogen pressure. In order to completely understand how several of these craters were formed from internal not external processes, I will summarize these four pages.
Basins
On my Basins page I demonstrate how volcanic activity in one area (especially when the ground is permafrost or ice) causes nearby land to collapse similar to what we see at
Iceland - Thingvellir,
Mars - Syrtis Major,
Ceres - Ahuna Mons,
US Wyoming - Jackson Hole/Teton Mountains
Siberia - Batagiaka
Pluto - Kilauea (my named volcano)
Iceland - Thingvellir,
Mars - Syrtis Major,
Ceres - Ahuna Mons,
US Wyoming - Jackson Hole/Teton Mountains
Siberia - Batagiaka
Pluto - Kilauea (my named volcano)
Thingvellir lake in Iceland. A collapsed land mass flanked by elevated mountains created by volcanic processes.
Mud volcano on Earth
Patera's are volcanoes. In this case (on Mars) Nili and Meroe are mud volcanoes which have created Isidis a collapsed basin
Topographical map of Mars' Syrtis Major Planum (elevated plane) an extinct mud volcano flowing into Isidis Planitia basin. The orange area is about 3 km high while the light blue is -4 km low. There is a difference of about 7 km (4.35 mi) in elevation between these two features.
Ahuna Mons on Ceres. Ahuna Mons is considered to be a cryovolcano. Next to it is a collapsed hole about the same size.
Jackson Hole Wyoming actively collapsing as the surrounding mountains are rising 15 feet per year.
Batagaika crater. Collapsed permafrost in Siberia that has been collapsing for the past 60 years
Batagaika sits next to a volcanically created mountain peak
As material is pushed upwards, nearby areas collapse into the void created by the uplift.
Active Nitrogen Cryovolcanoes on Pluto
Area north south and east of Viking Terra exhibits subsurface pressures in the form of expansion fractures, active and dormant cryovolcanoes
Five Sisters string of cryovolcanoes on Pluto
|
Eastern Volcanic zone of Kamchatka
|
Nitrogen signature demonstration how N2 is expelling out of the mouth of Elliot and Bread Slice
Elliot crater is an active volcano not an impact crater
|
Bread Slice (my name) is expelling nitrogen fluid
|
Dormant Volcano with Pahoehoe
The entire area surrounding Viking Terra is littered with evidence of past and present volcanic and geologic activity
The southern horizontal expansion fracture that runs through Elliot (active volcano) migrates into Kilauea (my name) volcano
This is pahoehoe lava that spilled out of Kilauea volcano in Hawaii. It has a distinct rippled folding pattern.
Mass of expelled pahoehoe lava to the NE closely matches that of the collapsed land ice to the south
Volcanoes
Depending on their age, there are a couple features that volcanoes exhibit which typically differ from impact craters.
Volcanoes often have flared out thick bases with vertical erosion striation bands running from the mouth down the outer walls. They sometimes have a central peak but more often have a hole in the middle that drops down deeper and deeper into the mouth. They also cluster into groups and regularly have nearby sunken land basins or planes. Kilauea on Pluto exhibits all of these traits.
Colima volcano in Mexico
Impact Craters
|
Impact craters usually have a broad shallow bowl shape sometimes with a central peak but much less often have a central divot or pit. Impact craters with a central divot only occur in icy terrains not rocky terrains.
Impact crater's outer side walls are usually very short in elevation compared to the diameter of the shallow bowl. Panel A) in this image is a Mars impact with a central divot, B) is Pluto. |
|
How does Pluto's Kilauea compare? Does Kilauea look more like an impact crater or a volcano?
Kilauea is a dormant volcano and it is also straddled by secondary volcanoes collapsed land and fossilized pahoehoe lava. There is a water ice signature inside Kilauea as well as within adjacent volcano mouths with sunken divots.
Kilauea is a dormant volcano and it is also straddled by secondary volcanoes collapsed land and fossilized pahoehoe lava. There is a water ice signature inside Kilauea as well as within adjacent volcano mouths with sunken divots.
Take another look at the below image of an area which professionally trained astronomers say is heavily saturated with impact craters and ask yourself;
Am I looking at several volcanoes along with a few intermingled impact craters?
or
Am I looking at a heavily saturated impact crater site?
Me, I see at least six volcanoes and about five similarly sized impact craters.
Am I looking at several volcanoes along with a few intermingled impact craters?
or
Am I looking at a heavily saturated impact crater site?
Me, I see at least six volcanoes and about five similarly sized impact craters.
These New Horizons' professionals use models that don't match observations (according to them), misidentify volcanoes as impact craters and use this errant information to inaccurately claim what they are looking at is 4 billion years old. These professional astronomers who specialize in the specific field of studying and counting craters can't tell the difference between a cryovolcano and an impact crater but assert this misinterpreted surface is 4 byr old.
The heavily cratered area surrounding Kilauea (white outline), red colored tholin is slightly darker than the rest of Cthulhu Regio's red tholin. The area outlined in white has more craters than to the west. This suggest to me that this white outlined area (lacking H2O spectroscopic ice signature) is being influenced by subsurface forces (heat) that don't exist to the west. Most areas on Pluto that do not have a water ice signature are either covered in methane or nitrogen but this area is mostly exposed tholin and primarily does not display a water ice signature. Most areas on Pluto that display tholin also display a water ice signature but not in most of the white outlined area which is Singer's panel a) area. Loads of volcanic craters, darker red tholin, lack of diffuse water signature along with focused water signature says this area is experiencing something different than any other areas.
While this non water ice section straddles Pluto's equator (lots of sunlight exposure), so too does the H2O ice signature covered Cthulhu area directly west. While sunlight may play a role in its heavily cratered surface some subsurface forces must also be at play else the area to the west would display similar results. One thing I feel confident about saying is that attempting to age date this area based on "impact" crater count is a pointless exerciser.
While this non water ice section straddles Pluto's equator (lots of sunlight exposure), so too does the H2O ice signature covered Cthulhu area directly west. While sunlight may play a role in its heavily cratered surface some subsurface forces must also be at play else the area to the west would display similar results. One thing I feel confident about saying is that attempting to age date this area based on "impact" crater count is a pointless exerciser.
|
Perhaps Kelsi should become a meteor-ologist (weatherwoman) at least they can have a 7 day forecast success rate of 73%.
NOAA gets their 7 day precipitation forecast correct 73% of the time. They get their one day forecast correct 85% of the time. If we extrapolate this out to 4 billion years (rain vs icy snow ball impactors) then Kelsi is likely to be correct 0.0000000001% of the time. Just like this estimate of mine is complete BS so too is K. Singer et al., paper's age dating model of the surface of Pluto. |
|
Elliot crater's rim looks much like an impact crater but its bowl shape is not shallow and wide compared to its interior sidewalls. It has a central peak that has a mouth with nitrogen flowing out. This would suggest Elliot was created by an internal explosive process similar to the exploding pit holes in Siberia or crater lake in Oregon. When substances reach their triple point temperature and pressure as nitrogen does on Pluto, there is an explosive reaction. Below video shows nitrogen at its triple point, skip to 2 min 30 sec if the drum beats annoy you.
|
|
|
Elliot was probably formed by an explosive pop in the crust similar to what is occurring in Siberia where exploding trapped methane gasses form holes similar to Elliot. In either case observational evidence makes interpreting the processes occurring at Elliot more complicated than those at Kilauea's cryovolcano.
|
|
Pluto's Kilauea rim, internal and external side walls slope, sunken pit mouth and Pahoehoe look nothing like Elliot but both lie along a highly pressurized fault line fracture system that runs into Sputnik Planitia. Kilauea appears to have been formed from slower erupting ices while Elliot appears to have been formed by a rapid explosive internal processes which is directly related to the nitrogen spilling out its mouth. While it is possible Elliot could have been formed from both an external impact plus an internal eruption process, its location along a pressurized expansion fracture, narrow steep walls, low rim and presence of N2 favor a rapid internal explosion process alone. All Kilauea's features point to it being a dormant cryovolcano.
The bottom line for me related to age dating via craters count is shaped around the Doran et al., statement "crater counting remains highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years." Its ridiculous to pretend like anyone can date or claim to know the age of a solar system body by the craters on its surface. This is especially true if you can't even tell the difference between an impact crater and a volcano along with observational evidence that doesn't agree with the models upon which you're basing your conclusions or there are only 6 impact craters!
I am not a scientist and because of this, there is much that I don't understand or possibly have misrepresented (unintentionally) on this web site. I have tried to rely on scientific papers as a source of first hand accurate information but my comprehension of those papers is limited. The internet is a marvelous and dangerous tool for spreading information both accurate and errant.
The best advice I can give anyone is; educate yourself, question everything, trust nothing, research and verify.
Google Scholar, arXiv.org and Wikipedia are three excellent repositories of information.
The best advice I can give anyone is; educate yourself, question everything, trust nothing, research and verify.
Google Scholar, arXiv.org and Wikipedia are three excellent repositories of information.
|
|
|