|
March 21st, 2016 Need some background music while you read? Thomas Dolby - She blinded me with science. |
|
|
Weird Science
Warning: Scientific Quote below
------------------------- SwRI’s Randy Gladstone of San Antonio is the lead author of the Science paper on atmospheric findings. Scientists also are analyzing the first close-up images of Pluto’s small moons—Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra. [….] Mission scientists further observed that the small satellites have highly anomalous rotation rates and uniformly unusual pole orientations, as well as icy surfaces with brightness and colors distinctly different from those of Pluto and Charon. ----------------------------- |
|
Let me see If I understand this, Nix has colors that look distinctly different from those of Pluto and Charon, Really? Do the above red colored icebergs look distinctly different than Nix? Is there something wrong with my eyes. Do I need to see an optometrist or does Nix look distinctly like icebergs on Pluto? |
|
Sure, Nix looks brighter than the icebergs at Norgay Montes but those icebergs have been getting covered in the gray cement material produced by UV light and the fluid that is flowing all over the southern pole of Pluto. Remember the cement fluid at the tributaries? It's being created and emanating from the south pole area and it's coating everything including the icebergs at Norgay Montes. Pluto's south pole face faces directly at the Sun during Pluto's 68 year long summer.
Nix was ejected from Pluto before this whole process of SP fluid and UV interaction began at Pluto's south pole, hence it is lighter in color since its more like the icebergs along the northwest edges of SP, those icebergs display very bright reflective surfaces. If these moons were 4 billion years old they would also have been baked in enough UV radiation to darken. That means these are young ice rocks not old ones.
Nix was ejected from Pluto before this whole process of SP fluid and UV interaction began at Pluto's south pole, hence it is lighter in color since its more like the icebergs along the northwest edges of SP, those icebergs display very bright reflective surfaces. If these moons were 4 billion years old they would also have been baked in enough UV radiation to darken. That means these are young ice rocks not old ones.
|
Doctor, Doctor Give Me the News.
Here's Hydra along with a fragment that landed softly enough back onto Charon to maintain its shape.
They look distinctly similar to me. Excuse me, I have to leave now, I've got a doctors appointment. I need to have my eyes checked. Ok, Ok, I'm back now. The doctor assures me, it's me. As he put it, Doctors and Scientist are always right so you can rest assured your eyes are deceiving you. You are getting sleepy very sleepy when I snap my finger you won't remember a thing just believe it all. Whew, glad to find out its just me. I'm reprogrammed now to believe whatever I'm told by any official and I can stop trusting my own thoughts and resources. |
Einstein Quote on Science;
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
What are the odds? They are 134 to 1, actually they're several billions to 1 but who's counting this is weird science.
Warning Scientific Quote below.
They’ve found evidence that some of the moons resulted from mergers of even smaller bodies, and that their surface ages date back at least 4 billion years. “These latter two results reinforce the hypothesis that the small moons formed in the aftermath of a collision that produced the Pluto-Charon binary system,” said Hal Weaver, New Horizons project scientist from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, and lead author of the Science paper on Pluto’s small moons.
End Quote
I would really like to see and evaluate the evidence that supports the idea that the tiny rocks called moons are 4 billion years old (page 67 addresses this fallacy). I would also like to see any evidence that indicates Pluto and Charon actually collided (Page 79 and 107 address this fallacy). I am reading up on this subject and have found new info related to the ages of most of Saturn's moons which are now thought to only be 100 million years old not billions.
Why is it so easy to assume Pluto and Charon collided?
Probably because we have a really good example of this scenario right here at home.
We have one (potentially) known example of two objects colliding in turn creating a moon and its right here with earth and our moon.
There is evidence to support the fact that our moon came from the earth as it's made of the same stuff.
Out of the billions of collisions that have occurred on all the moons and planets in our solar system we only know of one that created a moon like ours.
There are 127 moons orbiting Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. All of these moons were captured by gravity not created from impacts. While all the moons and planets show impacts, none have moons created from them except earth.
So we have one example of a moon created by an impact and 127 examples of gravity creating orbiting moons.
We have an example of two separate bodies that merged together in comet 67P, colliding gently enough to merge into one.
Scientist believe Hydra is two separate conjoined bodies as stated above.
Mercury and Venus do not have moons implying its not common for the inner rocky core planets to have moons but rather they consume everything they collide with. We just got lucky here on earth with our one of a kind moon.
But we naturally assume Pluto and Charon collided.
Our Moon is moving away from earth around 4 inches per year as a result of their collision.
Pluto and Charon are locked into a near perfect circular orbit, they are not drifting apart matter fact its more likely they are drifting together toward their barycenter.
Wouldn't they be moving away from each other if they had impacted, like we see with Earth/Moon?
I'm still comfortable continuing down the line of thought I've been following.
An object impacted Charon at 8 O-Clock cracking Charon like an egg shell then there were North pole impacts at Mordor, the southern mantle catastrophically ruptures, large shards impact Pluto which creates SP knocking fragments off Pluto at the deep pits creating the 4 rocks we call moons.
I don't see anything that refutes this theory and I will stick with it until I do.
The moons Nix, Styx, Hydra and Kerberos have odd spins and uniformly unusual pole orientations according to NASA scientist.
This seems to say they were kicked out here and into crazy orbits recently.
Had these objects been in orbit for 4 billion years they would have wobbled to a stop with their denser sides facing the barycenter Charon and Pluto share (like the lopsided ball rolling on the floor) they would have settled into a quiet orbit like Charon has with Pluto. These rocks are recent relative to Pluto/Charon. Resonance and frequencies of waves pulsating outward from Pluto/Charon are also a factor, suggesting the moons are young, which I explore further on page 19.
They’ve found evidence that some of the moons resulted from mergers of even smaller bodies, and that their surface ages date back at least 4 billion years. “These latter two results reinforce the hypothesis that the small moons formed in the aftermath of a collision that produced the Pluto-Charon binary system,” said Hal Weaver, New Horizons project scientist from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, and lead author of the Science paper on Pluto’s small moons.
End Quote
I would really like to see and evaluate the evidence that supports the idea that the tiny rocks called moons are 4 billion years old (page 67 addresses this fallacy). I would also like to see any evidence that indicates Pluto and Charon actually collided (Page 79 and 107 address this fallacy). I am reading up on this subject and have found new info related to the ages of most of Saturn's moons which are now thought to only be 100 million years old not billions.
Why is it so easy to assume Pluto and Charon collided?
Probably because we have a really good example of this scenario right here at home.
We have one (potentially) known example of two objects colliding in turn creating a moon and its right here with earth and our moon.
There is evidence to support the fact that our moon came from the earth as it's made of the same stuff.
Out of the billions of collisions that have occurred on all the moons and planets in our solar system we only know of one that created a moon like ours.
There are 127 moons orbiting Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. All of these moons were captured by gravity not created from impacts. While all the moons and planets show impacts, none have moons created from them except earth.
So we have one example of a moon created by an impact and 127 examples of gravity creating orbiting moons.
We have an example of two separate bodies that merged together in comet 67P, colliding gently enough to merge into one.
Scientist believe Hydra is two separate conjoined bodies as stated above.
Mercury and Venus do not have moons implying its not common for the inner rocky core planets to have moons but rather they consume everything they collide with. We just got lucky here on earth with our one of a kind moon.
But we naturally assume Pluto and Charon collided.
Our Moon is moving away from earth around 4 inches per year as a result of their collision.
Pluto and Charon are locked into a near perfect circular orbit, they are not drifting apart matter fact its more likely they are drifting together toward their barycenter.
Wouldn't they be moving away from each other if they had impacted, like we see with Earth/Moon?
I'm still comfortable continuing down the line of thought I've been following.
An object impacted Charon at 8 O-Clock cracking Charon like an egg shell then there were North pole impacts at Mordor, the southern mantle catastrophically ruptures, large shards impact Pluto which creates SP knocking fragments off Pluto at the deep pits creating the 4 rocks we call moons.
I don't see anything that refutes this theory and I will stick with it until I do.
The moons Nix, Styx, Hydra and Kerberos have odd spins and uniformly unusual pole orientations according to NASA scientist.
This seems to say they were kicked out here and into crazy orbits recently.
Had these objects been in orbit for 4 billion years they would have wobbled to a stop with their denser sides facing the barycenter Charon and Pluto share (like the lopsided ball rolling on the floor) they would have settled into a quiet orbit like Charon has with Pluto. These rocks are recent relative to Pluto/Charon. Resonance and frequencies of waves pulsating outward from Pluto/Charon are also a factor, suggesting the moons are young, which I explore further on page 19.
|
I came up with the odd ratio of 134 to 1 by adding 127 moons plus the two lobes of 67P and Hydra along with Pluto/Charon and finally the 2 rocky inner planets without moons to our one example of Earth/Moon collision. That math works for me, this page is about weird science after all. I'm going to take on this Pluto Charon collision theory on page 19. |
Update Oct 2017
The theory suggesting Earth's Moon was created from one large impacting body has now been shown to violate angular momentum constraints (explained on page 79). This means there are no known examples of moons formed via a large body impact within our solar system.
The theory suggesting Earth's Moon was created from one large impacting body has now been shown to violate angular momentum constraints (explained on page 79). This means there are no known examples of moons formed via a large body impact within our solar system.
