March 23rd 2016
I asked a question on Page 17 so I need to explore it.
The question revolves around the Pluto/Charon collision theory and it goes like this.
Who decided Pluto and Charon collided?
What evidence is there to support this collision theory?
How do we conclude Nix, Styx, Hydra and Kerberos are 4 billion years old and were created during this ancient collision?
Coincidentally while I've been working on this page, NASA held a conference on the 21st and 22nd of March addressing the 4 billion year old claim. Perfect timing.
I can tell scientists are aligning their findings with their own popular opinion on this subject.
As an example read page 17, Where scientists claim the four small moons are 4 billion years old.
NASA Scientists are confused by this fact/question, how are the 4 small moons so brightly reflective (high albedo) if they've been orbiting around Pluto/Charon for 4 billion years, cosmic and solar radiation should have darkened their surfaces a long time ago.
Seems to me, their spins are too fast and too wild and too active to be old timers.
These four moons are like playful kids running around their parents Pluto and Charon. The old parents just calmly, consistently, slowly migrate ever closer to each other seeking to embrace while the youthful energetic children scurry about. This isn't science just a logical conclusion and while logic and reason are often stretched to the breaking point in this vast and varied universe, it doesn't mean using logic is without merit.
In time, the small moons will settle down. Their more dense sides will wobble and finally come to rest pointing towards the barycenter of Pluto/Charon or Pluto/Charon will kick them out of orbital resonance.
Here's the commonly accepted view
Pluto and Charon collided 4 billion years ago creating 5 moons and Pluto.
Even scientists are confused by the fact there are only 4 small objects orbiting Pluto. An impact the size of Charon colliding with Pluto would have showered the system with thousand if not hundreds of thousands of shards (moons). All we see are four moons and Charon with it's smooth southern hemisphere and Pluto with no evidence of an impact this size.
Models, models, models.
The question revolves around the Pluto/Charon collision theory and it goes like this.
Who decided Pluto and Charon collided?
What evidence is there to support this collision theory?
How do we conclude Nix, Styx, Hydra and Kerberos are 4 billion years old and were created during this ancient collision?
Coincidentally while I've been working on this page, NASA held a conference on the 21st and 22nd of March addressing the 4 billion year old claim. Perfect timing.
I can tell scientists are aligning their findings with their own popular opinion on this subject.
As an example read page 17, Where scientists claim the four small moons are 4 billion years old.
NASA Scientists are confused by this fact/question, how are the 4 small moons so brightly reflective (high albedo) if they've been orbiting around Pluto/Charon for 4 billion years, cosmic and solar radiation should have darkened their surfaces a long time ago.
Seems to me, their spins are too fast and too wild and too active to be old timers.
These four moons are like playful kids running around their parents Pluto and Charon. The old parents just calmly, consistently, slowly migrate ever closer to each other seeking to embrace while the youthful energetic children scurry about. This isn't science just a logical conclusion and while logic and reason are often stretched to the breaking point in this vast and varied universe, it doesn't mean using logic is without merit.
In time, the small moons will settle down. Their more dense sides will wobble and finally come to rest pointing towards the barycenter of Pluto/Charon or Pluto/Charon will kick them out of orbital resonance.
Here's the commonly accepted view
Pluto and Charon collided 4 billion years ago creating 5 moons and Pluto.
Even scientists are confused by the fact there are only 4 small objects orbiting Pluto. An impact the size of Charon colliding with Pluto would have showered the system with thousand if not hundreds of thousands of shards (moons). All we see are four moons and Charon with it's smooth southern hemisphere and Pluto with no evidence of an impact this size.
Models, models, models.
Earth/Moon Collision Model. Oops! Pluto/Charon Collision Model
|
Quote in 2005 from Centauri Dreams
While the collision theory for both the Moon and the Pluto/Charon pair is not new, Canup is the first scientist to model the scenario successfully. This is the computer model created to demonstrate how Pluto/Charon collided then pulled apart. The creator of this model, Robin Canup of SWRI was asked in 2005 by Alan Stern to make it because she was the one that successfully created the Earth/Moon collision model that demonstrated Theia crashing into Earth creating our Moon. Other modelers weren't able to get Pluto and Charon to collide and form two bodies so the expert was brought in to force the scenario onto Pluto/Charon. This was in 2005 ten years before we arrived at Pluto. We decided what would be found ten years before we got to Pluto and created a model based on our unique Earth and Moon scenario to prove it. This quote from SETI Inst "Matija Ćuk and Sarah Stewart propose a new model to explain the remarkably similar chemistry of the Earth and Moon. A giant impact onto a fast-spinning Earth ejects material from Earth into orbit, which forms a Moon that is depleted in iron and has a composition similar to Earth's mantle. |
After the impact, the rapidly rotating Earth is slowed down by a gravitational interaction between the Sun and the Moon called an orbital resonance. The leading theory for the origin of the Moon is a giant impact with the young Earth. Recently, the hypothesis has been called into question by measurements that find that the Earth and Moon [have] the same isotopic composition (isotopes of an element have slightly different masses).
The isotopes of oxygen and titanium, for example, vary widely in the Solar System and are used to ‘fingerprint’ different planets and meteorite groups. The data show that the Earth and Moon are ‘isotopic twins’, but the original giant impact model predicted that most of the Moon was made from the body that struck Earth, which should have had a different isotopic fingerprint.
Therefore, the original giant impact model has a major problem: it can match the mass of the Moon and the rotation rates of the Earth and Moon, but not the chemistry of the Moon.
End Quote
Within the model of our own moon's formation which we know some things about, there are questions, Yet we claim to know the moons around Pluto/Charon are 4 billion years old and we have much less info about them than we do about our own moon.
On page 79, I show a new model that demonstrates the Giant Impact Hypothesis aka Theia impact model violates angular momentum constraints. On page 107 I show how Robin Canup's Pluto/Charon above collision model uses impossibly slow impact velocities lower than Pluto's escape velocity (gravitational pull).
The isotopes of oxygen and titanium, for example, vary widely in the Solar System and are used to ‘fingerprint’ different planets and meteorite groups. The data show that the Earth and Moon are ‘isotopic twins’, but the original giant impact model predicted that most of the Moon was made from the body that struck Earth, which should have had a different isotopic fingerprint.
Therefore, the original giant impact model has a major problem: it can match the mass of the Moon and the rotation rates of the Earth and Moon, but not the chemistry of the Moon.
End Quote
Within the model of our own moon's formation which we know some things about, there are questions, Yet we claim to know the moons around Pluto/Charon are 4 billion years old and we have much less info about them than we do about our own moon.
On page 79, I show a new model that demonstrates the Giant Impact Hypothesis aka Theia impact model violates angular momentum constraints. On page 107 I show how Robin Canup's Pluto/Charon above collision model uses impossibly slow impact velocities lower than Pluto's escape velocity (gravitational pull).
|
4 Billion Years?
Today is March 23 2016, two days ago several NASA scientist lectured on their interpretations of the latest data retrieved from New Horizons.
Dr. Kelsi Singer presented this image as supporting evidence from Nix and Hydra that the moons are 4 billion years old. Update April 2oth 2016 I've read the paper which describes the crater aging model. Sorry but, I'm not buying it. The southern hemisphere of Charon is smooth the north is raised and rigid, These two surfaces are obviously from different time frames yet Charon is 4 billion years old based on impact counts derived from both the southern and northern hemisphere |
Update: April 16th 2016
I have watched the video of Kelsy Singer and her explanation of how they determined these ice rocks called moons are 4 billion years old. I am not even remotely convinced by their presentation. One point is that Pluto Charon collided leaving a ring of debris which coalesced into these moons. Why is Nix red and Hydra lite gray? If they coalesced from small dust like particles in situ they would look similar to each other, one would not be red while the other is gray. One scientist says the albedo or brightness of these moons is too bright for them to be 4 billion years old then other scientists say there are 11 impacts on Nix and 3 on Hydra and that makes them 4 billion years old.
I have watched the video of Kelsy Singer and her explanation of how they determined these ice rocks called moons are 4 billion years old. I am not even remotely convinced by their presentation. One point is that Pluto Charon collided leaving a ring of debris which coalesced into these moons. Why is Nix red and Hydra lite gray? If they coalesced from small dust like particles in situ they would look similar to each other, one would not be red while the other is gray. One scientist says the albedo or brightness of these moons is too bright for them to be 4 billion years old then other scientists say there are 11 impacts on Nix and 3 on Hydra and that makes them 4 billion years old.
Update February 10th, 2017
Ammonia hydrates have been found on Charon, Styx, Nix and Hydra. Kerberos was too far and small to resolve but it also likely has ammonia on its surface. Ammonia Hydrates are easily broken down by photon from the Sun. At Pluto's distance to the Sun ammonia hydrates would be photodissociated in less than 20 million years. This photolysis process is similar to using carbon dating to understand the age of an object. Counting 3 impacts on Hydra and 11 on Nix is a weak method for measuring age where as photolysis of ammonia is a chemical process that would completely break the ammonia down in less than 20Myr. This is chemistry and it's calculable and accurate. Full details on Page 61
Update October 30th 2018
Ammonia hydrates have been found on Charon, Styx, Nix and Hydra. Kerberos was too far and small to resolve but it also likely has ammonia on its surface. Ammonia Hydrates are easily broken down by photon from the Sun. At Pluto's distance to the Sun ammonia hydrates would be photodissociated in less than 20 million years. This photolysis process is similar to using carbon dating to understand the age of an object. Counting 3 impacts on Hydra and 11 on Nix is a weak method for measuring age where as photolysis of ammonia is a chemical process that would completely break the ammonia down in less than 20Myr. This is chemistry and it's calculable and accurate. Full details on Page 61
Update October 30th 2018
|
On page 67 I show how Kelsi Singer et al., manipulate and falsify the data used to support the concept that 19 impacts on these moons "prove" they are 4 byr old. They scale their data for regolith (shifting the time frame deeper into the past) yet place the words "Scaled by 2.6" for water ice. They use regolith scaling even though it is proven the surfaces of the small satellites are bright water ice then Singer removes more than half the data points.
|
|
Warning New Horizons science team quote below
Evidence has long pointed to a giant impact creating Pluto's satellite system. Really? The only evidence we had was the model Robin Canup created 10 years before we knew anything about these two objects, the same model that only Canup could coerce into existence. Forcing a model into existence is not evidence.
Crater measurements help scientists estimate the “age” of a planetary body’s surface
End quote
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.
Something I don't understand about these images is that the two pictures of Nix (front and back) have 15 impacts while Hydra has 3 and from this we deduce both these objects are the same age and that age naturally points to 4 billion years ago. The exact same number we guessed at before we ever got to Pluto, What a coincidence, We must be really good or really blinded by our own dogma. I know which way I'm leaning.
Evidence has long pointed to a giant impact creating Pluto's satellite system. Really? The only evidence we had was the model Robin Canup created 10 years before we knew anything about these two objects, the same model that only Canup could coerce into existence. Forcing a model into existence is not evidence.
Crater measurements help scientists estimate the “age” of a planetary body’s surface
End quote
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.
Something I don't understand about these images is that the two pictures of Nix (front and back) have 15 impacts while Hydra has 3 and from this we deduce both these objects are the same age and that age naturally points to 4 billion years ago. The exact same number we guessed at before we ever got to Pluto, What a coincidence, We must be really good or really blinded by our own dogma. I know which way I'm leaning.
|
Updated April 21st 2016
I have read papers and watched videos of the conference and I now have a better understanding of how this impact model is supposed to work. In the conference Kelsey Singer states Nix impact count was as high as 50 but was reduced to 29 to account for potential overlaps while this NASA released paper says (of which Kelsey was a part) there are 11 impacts that's why there are only 11 yellow dots in the image. My issue with this dating method is, for one it disagrees with the albedo or brightness results. The albedo implies these ice rocks can't be 4 billion years old as the UV radiation from the Sun would have baked them enough to darken them. They are too bright to be 4 Gyr old. Impact quantities can vary for many reason. For a moment, consider this possibility, Charon was hit on the North Pole which dislodged fragments from the southern hemisphere. This sent multitudes of shards off in all directions, many of which settled into the same low pressure gravity troughs occupied by Nix and Hydra. This means there would have been a disproportionately large amount of objects for Nix and Hydra to collide into. Nix is closer to Pluto/Charon so more bits of debris would reside there and Nix has more impacts than Hydra. Hydra being further out would have had fewer bits collecting in its low pressure gravity zone. |
The wobble of these moons could suggest their age to be closer to 100 to 500 million years in age. If there had been 4 billion years of time for these moons to establish their orbits they would either have settled down or would have been ejected and would be much much darker.
Additionally, consider this, Nix is about 12 x 25 miles wide by long (recently updated to 12 x 29 miles (averaged to 18 miles)), take an 18 mile diameter circle and move it around the surface of Pluto or Charon and you will see a different concentration of impacts contained within the circle suggesting differing ages in the terrain depending on how many impacts are found within that circle. This demonstrates how unreliable this method can be especially as the object gets smaller, 18 miles is pretty small and 50, 29 and 11 inconsistently counted impacts are used to make a claim of accurately calculating Nix's age at 4 billion years old. And then there's Hydra with only 3 impacts which is about the same size as Nix and yet 3 impacts indicate it is 4 billion years old as well. Please!
For these reasons, and more, I don’t trust the impact counting method for small satellites.
On page 104 I evaluate another paper (Kelsi Singer et al.,) where age dating Pluto/Charon via impacts is the goal. The below two panels (Fig 2b and Fig 2a) were used in this paper in which it is admitted that observational evidence does not align with their impact models yet they ignore visual evidence in favor of their models.
Additionally, consider this, Nix is about 12 x 25 miles wide by long (recently updated to 12 x 29 miles (averaged to 18 miles)), take an 18 mile diameter circle and move it around the surface of Pluto or Charon and you will see a different concentration of impacts contained within the circle suggesting differing ages in the terrain depending on how many impacts are found within that circle. This demonstrates how unreliable this method can be especially as the object gets smaller, 18 miles is pretty small and 50, 29 and 11 inconsistently counted impacts are used to make a claim of accurately calculating Nix's age at 4 billion years old. And then there's Hydra with only 3 impacts which is about the same size as Nix and yet 3 impacts indicate it is 4 billion years old as well. Please!
For these reasons, and more, I don’t trust the impact counting method for small satellites.
On page 104 I evaluate another paper (Kelsi Singer et al.,) where age dating Pluto/Charon via impacts is the goal. The below two panels (Fig 2b and Fig 2a) were used in this paper in which it is admitted that observational evidence does not align with their impact models yet they ignore visual evidence in favor of their models.
Update May 25th 2016
The impact theory of counting craters has other weaknesses. One scientist (Alan Stern) compared dating planets via counting impacts with setting a large sheet of paper in the rain and as the drops hit you can count them to get an idea of the rains intensity or how long the paper has been sitting in the rain.
Counting impacts on our moon which is relatively close to the Sun will produce different results than a moon orbiting Neptune where few objects exist in close proximity. Likewise, counting impacts on Ceres which is inside the asteroid belt will have different counts than a moon orbiting Jupiter or Saturn. Because of Pluto's eccentric orbit, it spends about a quarter of its time inside the Kuiper belt (encountering more objects) and three quarters outside (with few objects),
Pluto is also in a 2 to 3 resonance with Neptune assuring they can't collide. Neptune perturbs Kuiper belt objects into and out of Pluto's path. Then take Nix at 18 miles and based on impact counts scientist are claiming to date Nix at 4 billion years old. I just don't see how this dating method could be remotely accurate. It seems to me reflective brightness and the wobble of the moons would yield more reliable results.
If I put a sheet of paper in the rain in a tropical zone, I will get wildly different results than if I put it in a desert.
And lets not forget what
P. T. Doran et al., 2004 said.
Chronology based on crater counting remains highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years.
The impact theory of counting craters has other weaknesses. One scientist (Alan Stern) compared dating planets via counting impacts with setting a large sheet of paper in the rain and as the drops hit you can count them to get an idea of the rains intensity or how long the paper has been sitting in the rain.
Counting impacts on our moon which is relatively close to the Sun will produce different results than a moon orbiting Neptune where few objects exist in close proximity. Likewise, counting impacts on Ceres which is inside the asteroid belt will have different counts than a moon orbiting Jupiter or Saturn. Because of Pluto's eccentric orbit, it spends about a quarter of its time inside the Kuiper belt (encountering more objects) and three quarters outside (with few objects),
Pluto is also in a 2 to 3 resonance with Neptune assuring they can't collide. Neptune perturbs Kuiper belt objects into and out of Pluto's path. Then take Nix at 18 miles and based on impact counts scientist are claiming to date Nix at 4 billion years old. I just don't see how this dating method could be remotely accurate. It seems to me reflective brightness and the wobble of the moons would yield more reliable results.
If I put a sheet of paper in the rain in a tropical zone, I will get wildly different results than if I put it in a desert.
And lets not forget what
P. T. Doran et al., 2004 said.
Chronology based on crater counting remains highly imprecise with epoch boundary uncertainties in excess of 2 billion years.
Updated on 7/31/2016
Here's another reason I have a problem with the reliability of this crater counting method to determine the age of an object.
Look at this picture of the near side of our moon. Until 1969 this was the only view of the moon we had.
Here's another reason I have a problem with the reliability of this crater counting method to determine the age of an object.
Look at this picture of the near side of our moon. Until 1969 this was the only view of the moon we had.
Now compare the number of impacts you can see in the above image with the number you can see on the far side.
This is the same moon in the same place in space, just two different sides
The crater count is vastly different from one side to the other yet counting craters on one side reveals the same age as counting craters on the opposite side. It just seems fraught with problems as a dating method.
This is the same moon in the same place in space, just two different sides
The crater count is vastly different from one side to the other yet counting craters on one side reveals the same age as counting craters on the opposite side. It just seems fraught with problems as a dating method.
Update May 24th 2016
Below is a chart comparison of the reflectance of Charon, Hydra and bright ice.
At the outer extremes of the graph are Charon on the dark side and ice on the bright side with Hydra riding in the middle.
To me this is easy to explain as it fits nicely into my north pole (Mordor) impact theory.
Ice is bright white and very reflective so it becomes the standard brightness to measure against while Charon is darkest as it has been slowly rotating since the impact at Mordor and cooking in the Sun's UV radiation. This has darkened Charon to its current reflectivity.
Then there's Hydra's reflectivity floating in the middle. Since Hydra was likely blasted off Charon or Pluto during these series of impacts you would think it would have a similar reflectively to Charon. So why is it lighter in color suggesting it has not been baked by as much UV radiation? Because of its erratic and more rapid spin, Hydra has not sat still long enough to get cooked like Charon, Charon rotates slowly. Hydra spins on its axis nearly 100 times per one revolution around Pluto/Charon's barycenter. Its similar to a slowly stirred pot of stew compared to one stirred rapidly. The faster you stir the cooler the effect the less heat to cook the stew.
The rapid spin of Hydra doesn't leave any one point on its surface exposed to UV light long enough to match Charon's lower reflectivity. Even with this fast spin it does absorb some UV radiation so its not as white as ice.
On May 5th NASA had this to say about Hydra
The new data – known as infrared spectra – show the unmistakable signature of crystalline water ice: a broad absorption from 1.50 to 1.60 microns and a narrower water-ice spectral feature at 1.65 microns. The Hydra spectrum is similar to that of Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, which is also dominated by crystalline water ice.
NASA and I agree that Hydra came from Charon but NASA thinks its 4 billion years old and I don't. They base their age model of Hydra on 3 impacts. Yep! 3 impacts on Hydra means it's 4 billion years old. I don't know about you but I find this idea indigestible. NASA thinks the variation in reflectance is due to contaminants, micro meteorite's vibrate them off Hydra but not Charon.
Below is a chart comparison of the reflectance of Charon, Hydra and bright ice.
At the outer extremes of the graph are Charon on the dark side and ice on the bright side with Hydra riding in the middle.
To me this is easy to explain as it fits nicely into my north pole (Mordor) impact theory.
Ice is bright white and very reflective so it becomes the standard brightness to measure against while Charon is darkest as it has been slowly rotating since the impact at Mordor and cooking in the Sun's UV radiation. This has darkened Charon to its current reflectivity.
Then there's Hydra's reflectivity floating in the middle. Since Hydra was likely blasted off Charon or Pluto during these series of impacts you would think it would have a similar reflectively to Charon. So why is it lighter in color suggesting it has not been baked by as much UV radiation? Because of its erratic and more rapid spin, Hydra has not sat still long enough to get cooked like Charon, Charon rotates slowly. Hydra spins on its axis nearly 100 times per one revolution around Pluto/Charon's barycenter. Its similar to a slowly stirred pot of stew compared to one stirred rapidly. The faster you stir the cooler the effect the less heat to cook the stew.
The rapid spin of Hydra doesn't leave any one point on its surface exposed to UV light long enough to match Charon's lower reflectivity. Even with this fast spin it does absorb some UV radiation so its not as white as ice.
On May 5th NASA had this to say about Hydra
The new data – known as infrared spectra – show the unmistakable signature of crystalline water ice: a broad absorption from 1.50 to 1.60 microns and a narrower water-ice spectral feature at 1.65 microns. The Hydra spectrum is similar to that of Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, which is also dominated by crystalline water ice.
NASA and I agree that Hydra came from Charon but NASA thinks its 4 billion years old and I don't. They base their age model of Hydra on 3 impacts. Yep! 3 impacts on Hydra means it's 4 billion years old. I don't know about you but I find this idea indigestible. NASA thinks the variation in reflectance is due to contaminants, micro meteorite's vibrate them off Hydra but not Charon.
|
Update: May 24th 2016
The Pluto image to the left with the large blue circle is the model created explaining Pluto's atmospheric escape rate prior to arrival. The Pluto image on the right with the blue circle is what was actually found by New Horizons. The estimate or predictive model was off by a thousand times. |
A quote from Alan Stern while referencing the atmosphere
"We got an A for exploration and an F for predictive ability." impressive honesty.
I'm not trying to discredit Alan and his team, what they pulled off is nothing short of amazing. I'm simply trying to point out models can be wrong. We need models to try to help predict phenomenon we don't yet understand but models can be wrong.
"We got an A for exploration and an F for predictive ability." impressive honesty.
I'm not trying to discredit Alan and his team, what they pulled off is nothing short of amazing. I'm simply trying to point out models can be wrong. We need models to try to help predict phenomenon we don't yet understand but models can be wrong.
The final blow to this 4 billion year old theory
Update February 6th 2017
Page 61 utilizes real science related to ammonia hydrates found on the moons and its decay rate from Sun light which proves at least a portion of the moons surface material is less than 20 million years old.
Page 61 utilizes real science related to ammonia hydrates found on the moons and its decay rate from Sun light which proves at least a portion of the moons surface material is less than 20 million years old.
|
Mathematical Models
This is how we viewed the universe when we believed the earth was at its center. This is called the geocentric model (Earth Centered).
Because of the retrograde (back and fourth) motion of planets like mars or Jupiter, Ptolemy in 150 AD created mathematical models that matched what we thought we knew, the Earth is stationary and the universe rotates around it, seemed reasonable. Only problem was our view of the events were incorrect, our assumptions limited our ability to understand the odd behavior of planets. Rather than attempt to understand the reason behind the behavior we opted for insanely complex formulas. This Earth centered (geocentric) view of the universe lasted for over fourteen hundred years. It appeared to make sense yet we didn't have the right perspective. |
|
Once incorrect conclusions were agreed upon, creating a model to represent those conclusion is just a matter of mathematical effort. Math can be made to validate most theories, which in and of itself does not mean the theory is unquestionably correct. Fortunately Copernicus came along and simplified the math while expanding our view by placing the Sun at the center of our solar system and in the process changed how we calculated and viewed the universe forever. Even after this, our view was limited and we thought the universe was stable and unchanging since, as Einstein put it, god doesn't roll the dice with the universe. |
|
Einstein's Model
Albert Einstein was one of the most flexible thinking humans in history.
With his theory of Special Relativity he helped us make another quantum leap forward in our understanding of the cosmos. Einstein revolutionized science by rejecting conventional wisdom. One problem he faced was, in order for his equations to work while maintaining a static universe he had to employ a cosmological constant (a value that made the universe constant and unchanging) otherwise his math indicated gravity would pull the universe together and collapse or force it to expand. He believed the universe was static or unchanging so he had to force his mathematical model to change in order to have a stable unchanging universe. Dogma trumped math and in turn changed the math to fit the dogma. |
When Georges Lemaitre first proposed to Einstein that Einstein's own math suggested the universe was expanding, Einstein called the idea an abomination.
Later on when Edwin Hubble observed and calculated the movement of galaxies and found them to be moving apart from each other, Einstein had to admit the universe was in fact expanding. Say goodbye to the cosmological constant Einstein used to force his math to match his dogma.
We are all susceptible to this process. You have to start with the correct premise in order to have an accurate model.
Later on when Edwin Hubble observed and calculated the movement of galaxies and found them to be moving apart from each other, Einstein had to admit the universe was in fact expanding. Say goodbye to the cosmological constant Einstein used to force his math to match his dogma.
We are all susceptible to this process. You have to start with the correct premise in order to have an accurate model.
|
What's my model
This is the surface of Charon with many examples of angular fragments that fell back onto Charon after its southern hemisphere was catastrophically disrupted.
The largest and most energetically ejected pieces of broken mantel escaped the gravitational control of Pluto/Charon. Pluto took a heavy hit from these larger objects in turn creating Sputnik Planitia. Some of the ejected smaller bits pushed outward with a lighter force and fell back onto Charon while others fell into low pressure troughs that emanate out in waves from Pluto/Charon's barycenter. The debris would have collected in the gravitational low pressure troughs of these waves causing multiple impacts onto the largest object within that low pressure zone. Some chunks from Pluto were also knocked off creating the V Pits one of them was an iceberg we call the moon Nix which is similar to what we see at Norgay Montes. It was ejected with a force that placed it into one of these gravity troughs. There are many multiple small impacts on Nix as the result of it clearing out this low pressure zone of smaller debris. I'm not knowledgable enough to act like I can date these objects but the variety of spins likely says something about their age's. Pluto and Charon's spins are totally different than Nix and Hydra. |
Nix and Hydra's spins are totally different than each other, seems to me the spins say something about their age and since Pluto/Charon's spins are different than Nix and Hydra, their ages are different. Moons tend to create a pattern of resonance within their orbital period of 1 to 2 or 2 to 3 or 3 to 5, as in the case of Neptune and Pluto which are in a 3 to 2 resonance that prevents them from ever colliding.
|
That's the best I can do for now, I'll give it more thought and research.
The wave image above has serious limitations, the complexities of these orbiting bodies and the gravitational wave patterns they create probably look more like this. The barycenter which Pluto/Charon orbit around would create a series of low and high gravity pressure waves that would be disrupted by the rotating and varied masses of Pluto/Charon. All three of these low or high pressure zones with spinning masses will produce an extremely complex rotating gravitational wave pattern. Add to that the irregular shape of the four ice rocks (moons) and this scene gets really complicated. This dynamic gravitational field is likely responsible for Nix and Hydra's peculiar tumble, spin and wobble. The point of this page is to ask one question. What's in YOUR model/theory? |
|
Update 03/27/2016
A planet called Kepler 16b was discovered in 2011 which is orbiting a binary pair of stars this is known as a circumbinary planet. One scientist described the orbit of the planet as a drunken walk, the rotating stars create complex gravity waves that cause planet 16b to wobble like a drunk. The Pluto/Charon system acts as a circumbinary moon system. This fits with observations of Nix's weird wobble. In this scenario at Kepler 16b the planet could easily get kicked out of the system if the pattern of waves and rotation are just right. This means that some of the rocks that were orbiting Pluto/Charon likely got kicked out of the system and these four are what fell into a near resonant frequency that allowed them to hang around and wobble like drunks.
Update 4/1/2016
Yesterday I found an article dated 3/23/2016 (same day I made this "Models" page) by Matija Cuk, Luke Dons and David Nesvorny titled "Dynamical Evidence for a Late Formation of Saturn's Moons". This study suggests that most of Saturn's moons are likely only 100 million years old not billions. Rather than counting impacts they are referencing the orbital resonance patterns of the moons.
Matija Cuk, said, “Moons are always changing their orbits. That’s inevitable. But that fact allows us to use computer simulations to tease out the history of Saturn’s inner moons. Doing so, we find that they were most likely born during the most recent 2 percent of the planet's history.”
This study opens the door for my theory about the formation of the Plutonian moons. They likely came into existence as the result of impacts that created SP and they likely came from the pits or at least some of Charon's shards that created SP. Early estimates for the surface of SP were 10 million years (now adjusted down to 1 million years, later adjusted down to less than 500 k years). If that's the age of the surface at SP then how old might the damage be that created the fluid, possibly 100, 200 or 500 million years but likely not 4 billion. Pluto/Charon's moons are in a resonant orbital frequency. Dr. Matija Cuk is planning to study the Plutonian moons with the same models he used on Saturn, I look forward to reading his results.
A planet called Kepler 16b was discovered in 2011 which is orbiting a binary pair of stars this is known as a circumbinary planet. One scientist described the orbit of the planet as a drunken walk, the rotating stars create complex gravity waves that cause planet 16b to wobble like a drunk. The Pluto/Charon system acts as a circumbinary moon system. This fits with observations of Nix's weird wobble. In this scenario at Kepler 16b the planet could easily get kicked out of the system if the pattern of waves and rotation are just right. This means that some of the rocks that were orbiting Pluto/Charon likely got kicked out of the system and these four are what fell into a near resonant frequency that allowed them to hang around and wobble like drunks.
Update 4/1/2016
Yesterday I found an article dated 3/23/2016 (same day I made this "Models" page) by Matija Cuk, Luke Dons and David Nesvorny titled "Dynamical Evidence for a Late Formation of Saturn's Moons". This study suggests that most of Saturn's moons are likely only 100 million years old not billions. Rather than counting impacts they are referencing the orbital resonance patterns of the moons.
Matija Cuk, said, “Moons are always changing their orbits. That’s inevitable. But that fact allows us to use computer simulations to tease out the history of Saturn’s inner moons. Doing so, we find that they were most likely born during the most recent 2 percent of the planet's history.”
This study opens the door for my theory about the formation of the Plutonian moons. They likely came into existence as the result of impacts that created SP and they likely came from the pits or at least some of Charon's shards that created SP. Early estimates for the surface of SP were 10 million years (now adjusted down to 1 million years, later adjusted down to less than 500 k years). If that's the age of the surface at SP then how old might the damage be that created the fluid, possibly 100, 200 or 500 million years but likely not 4 billion. Pluto/Charon's moons are in a resonant orbital frequency. Dr. Matija Cuk is planning to study the Plutonian moons with the same models he used on Saturn, I look forward to reading his results.
My Unfair Advantage
I have an unfair advantage over many scientists, I'm dumb.
The first time I took an interest in Pluto was when New Horizons was arriving and taking pictures of Sputnik Planum, then suddenly I felt my mind had been impacted and a fire ignited in me. I was blown away by those images, I still am.
Initially, I had one thought I wanted to force onto Pluto, in my ignorance, I thought SP was created by tidal flexing and I was excited to prove it. Turns out Pluto had other plans. Pluto/Charon orbit their barycenter in a near perfect circular pattern. No tidal flexing, so I had to abandon that notion. At that point, my mind was a clean slate and I was simply trying to read Pluto/Charon's message.
October 30, 2018 tidal flex may not be entirely off the table. Pluto wobbles (page 78) 20 degrees pulling Charon and the four moons along for the ride setting up a lead lag tidal stress zone directly opposite Charon (the center of the deep pits at SP).
I feel like I live on Pluto/Charon, perusing the terrain, learning from them, as I make a discovery, I look for scientific explanations and encounter too much pseudo science along with amazing science. I want to plant a flag on my planet and tell everyone to stop pushing their suppositions onto us. Isn't science the process of examining the evidence to draw a conclusion rather than pushing conclusions onto evidence?
I didn't know there were so many preconceived notions as to what Pluto was expected to be. I just stumbled into the party and fell in love with all the new discoveries. I've tried to read up on the science so as not to make some wildly stupid comments (which I probably have) but the journey has been one of exploration and discovery for me. For that, I thank NASA and all the scientists involved in this pursuit of knowledge.
I think something exciting is brewing upstairs, no wait that's my coffee pot.
I need to better understand that Burp Bulge called Viking Terra.
The first time I took an interest in Pluto was when New Horizons was arriving and taking pictures of Sputnik Planum, then suddenly I felt my mind had been impacted and a fire ignited in me. I was blown away by those images, I still am.
Initially, I had one thought I wanted to force onto Pluto, in my ignorance, I thought SP was created by tidal flexing and I was excited to prove it. Turns out Pluto had other plans. Pluto/Charon orbit their barycenter in a near perfect circular pattern. No tidal flexing, so I had to abandon that notion. At that point, my mind was a clean slate and I was simply trying to read Pluto/Charon's message.
October 30, 2018 tidal flex may not be entirely off the table. Pluto wobbles (page 78) 20 degrees pulling Charon and the four moons along for the ride setting up a lead lag tidal stress zone directly opposite Charon (the center of the deep pits at SP).
I feel like I live on Pluto/Charon, perusing the terrain, learning from them, as I make a discovery, I look for scientific explanations and encounter too much pseudo science along with amazing science. I want to plant a flag on my planet and tell everyone to stop pushing their suppositions onto us. Isn't science the process of examining the evidence to draw a conclusion rather than pushing conclusions onto evidence?
I didn't know there were so many preconceived notions as to what Pluto was expected to be. I just stumbled into the party and fell in love with all the new discoveries. I've tried to read up on the science so as not to make some wildly stupid comments (which I probably have) but the journey has been one of exploration and discovery for me. For that, I thank NASA and all the scientists involved in this pursuit of knowledge.
I think something exciting is brewing upstairs, no wait that's my coffee pot.
I need to better understand that Burp Bulge called Viking Terra.
