June 27th 2016
Editing performed on July 3rd, 2017
Editing performed on July 3rd, 2017
|
JD McPherson
You must have met little Caroline Do you feel like I feel Half a dozen times a day When the lights go out and your thoughts drift away? |
|
Another paper (I'll call it "Ice Shell") was recently released titled “Recent Tectonic Activity on Pluto Driven by Phase Changes in the Ice Shell”. The basic premise of the paper is that Pluto formed a radioactive silicate rocky core 4 billion years ago. That theoretical core has created a subsurface water based ocean. That ocean is still liquid (syrup like) but freezing and the freezing process is what is causing expansion fractures on Pluto's surface.
The most interesting aspect (to me) of this Ice Shell paper is the extensional faults which indicate Pluto is expanding or growing. I’m calling them stretch marks as they seem to be occurring as the result of Pluto’s outer surface cracking due to its expansion or stretching. Quote - Since there is no evidence for recent compressional tectonic features, we argue that ice II has not formed and that Pluto's ocean has likely survived to present day.
There are more than one method for a body like this to expand
The most interesting aspect (to me) of this Ice Shell paper is the extensional faults which indicate Pluto is expanding or growing. I’m calling them stretch marks as they seem to be occurring as the result of Pluto’s outer surface cracking due to its expansion or stretching. Quote - Since there is no evidence for recent compressional tectonic features, we argue that ice II has not formed and that Pluto's ocean has likely survived to present day.
There are more than one method for a body like this to expand
- one is the premise put forth in the paper which is "There is a core of silicate rock which is radioactively decaying creating a subsurface water based ocean which is cooling, freezing and expanding"",
- Another method is by the acquisition of additional material. As material is added via impacts the inward compression ability of crustal material increases subsurface pressures and temperatures.
- Another is for tidal flex energy to heat the abundant nitrogen causing it to melt, expand and gasify.
|
The triple point of nitrogen is at a temperature 63K and a pressure of 12.5kPa. Below 12.5kPa, nitrogen does not have a liquid phase, it goes straight from solid to gas like dry ice.
Pluto has a surface pressure of 1Pa, 12500 times too small but as NASA points out Pluto's axis wobbles (Milankovitch style) 24 degrees every 2.8 million years which has drastic effects on atmospheric pressure. Pluto's atmosphere can reach high enough pressures every 2.8 Myr to allow nitrogen to reach its triple point allowing it to transition through its solid, liquid and gas phases, |
|
Otherwise, because of a lack of pressure the nitrogen ice transitions directly from a solid ice to a gas vapor bypassing the liquid phase.
Consider how much more significant the subsurface pressures act on this nitrogen. When nitrogen goes from solid to liquid it expands unlike water ice. When it is a gas it expands even more and all this expansion of this subsurface nitrogen causes expansion fractures on the surface crust as the nitrogen escapes forming an atmosphere and a nitrogen ocean of toothpaste ice at Sputnik Planitia. |
|
The above graphs were created by NASA the most significant of which is the T-0.9 Myrs Epoch (900 thousand years ago) shown enlarged below. Nine hundred thousand years ago, Pluto's atmospheric pressure increased to 281.21 mbar or 28.121 kPa which is more than twice the required pressure for nitrogen to transition from a solid to a liquid then gas rather than directly evaporating (sublimating) from a solid to a gas.
This increased pressure (0.9 mya) existed from axial wobble and was high enough to cause nitrogen to reach its triple point. If Pluto's atmosphere can increase its pressure enough to push nitrogen to its triple point then it's a no brainer that subsurface pressures can do the same.
This increased pressure (0.9 mya) existed from axial wobble and was high enough to cause nitrogen to reach its triple point. If Pluto's atmosphere can increase its pressure enough to push nitrogen to its triple point then it's a no brainer that subsurface pressures can do the same.
The Ice Shell paper says there is no evidence for recent compressional tectonic features on Pluto,
I think one must ignore the ridge line that runs from the North to South pole to make this statement. These fold mountains are a compression zone. Below I've outlined a ridge that runs from the north to south pole and splits off at the northern edge of Sputnik Planitia (SP). This ridge shows how Pluto is split open below SP spilling out nitrogen pushing the land ice to the east and west.
I think one must ignore the ridge line that runs from the North to South pole to make this statement. These fold mountains are a compression zone. Below I've outlined a ridge that runs from the north to south pole and splits off at the northern edge of Sputnik Planitia (SP). This ridge shows how Pluto is split open below SP spilling out nitrogen pushing the land ice to the east and west.
|
The below image's are the same as on the left but viewed from the north facing toward the south. You can see two to five crumpled ridge lines also known as fold mountains (AKA signs of compression) as mentioned on page 29.
|
Fold mountains on Earth
|
Fold mountain building process
|
Here's the typical scientific mindset related to planetary geological processes.
Earth has plates that shift and slide while other planets or moons have one plate that is stagnant like Mars. Mars is dead with a single crustal plate and no geology. Mercury closest to the Sun however, is one plate but is shrinking so it displays compressive features as the raw material is burned off from the Sun's heat and it shrinks into a smaller and smaller ball. Saturn's moon Enceladus has a single ice crust that is stretched and cracked by tidal forces creating its south pole Tiger Stripes. Pluto shows many expansion fractures so the entire planet must be expanding like a balloon that is getting blown up.
But in Pluto's case, I think this is incorrect since we see both expansion and compression features. Expansion is being caused by the subsurface nitrogen under pressure enlarging from its conversion into a fluid and gas. As it pushes upward it creates expansion features like Viking Terra, the Spider and many fractures but also bubbles up at SP and fans out with enough mass to deform the land ice creating some compression features as noted above.
The issue of density is an important point so I will put some effort into addressing it.
Quote from Nick Stroble web page.
Terrestrial planets (Earth-like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) have overall densities = 4-5 (relative to the density of water = 1) with silicate rocks on the surface. Silicate rock has density = 3 (less than the average density of a terrestrial planet) and iron has a density = 7.8 (more than the average density of a terrestrial planet). Since terrestrial planets have average densities greater than that for the silicate rocks on their surface, they must have denser material under the surface to make the overall average density what it is.
Quote from the Ice Shell paper
Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt, with a radius R = 1187 km (Stern et al. 2015), and a bulk density of p = 1:86 ±0.013 g/cm3 (Stern et al. 2015), suggesting a mixed ice-rock composition (McKinnon et al. 1997, 2008).
Earth has plates that shift and slide while other planets or moons have one plate that is stagnant like Mars. Mars is dead with a single crustal plate and no geology. Mercury closest to the Sun however, is one plate but is shrinking so it displays compressive features as the raw material is burned off from the Sun's heat and it shrinks into a smaller and smaller ball. Saturn's moon Enceladus has a single ice crust that is stretched and cracked by tidal forces creating its south pole Tiger Stripes. Pluto shows many expansion fractures so the entire planet must be expanding like a balloon that is getting blown up.
But in Pluto's case, I think this is incorrect since we see both expansion and compression features. Expansion is being caused by the subsurface nitrogen under pressure enlarging from its conversion into a fluid and gas. As it pushes upward it creates expansion features like Viking Terra, the Spider and many fractures but also bubbles up at SP and fans out with enough mass to deform the land ice creating some compression features as noted above.
The issue of density is an important point so I will put some effort into addressing it.
Quote from Nick Stroble web page.
Terrestrial planets (Earth-like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) have overall densities = 4-5 (relative to the density of water = 1) with silicate rocks on the surface. Silicate rock has density = 3 (less than the average density of a terrestrial planet) and iron has a density = 7.8 (more than the average density of a terrestrial planet). Since terrestrial planets have average densities greater than that for the silicate rocks on their surface, they must have denser material under the surface to make the overall average density what it is.
Quote from the Ice Shell paper
Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt, with a radius R = 1187 km (Stern et al. 2015), and a bulk density of p = 1:86 ±0.013 g/cm3 (Stern et al. 2015), suggesting a mixed ice-rock composition (McKinnon et al. 1997, 2008).
Pluto/Charon interior
|
This model of Pluto and Charon being differentiated was created by NASA before New Horizons arrived so some of the info (numbers) is inaccurate (well, according to me it's mostly all inaccurate as I believe Pluto is uniform).
Since New Horizons' arrival at Pluto, Scientists now calculate Pluto has a density of 1.86 ±0.013 g/cm3 and is differentiated. |
Moon core
|
The toothpaste consistency nitrogen fluid at SP is more dense than the water ICE-bergs which are floating atop the nitrogen, hence the 1.86 ±0.013 g/cm3 density of Pluto could be due in small part to the more dense nitrogen/methane mix along with a partially mixed silicate material not necessarily at its core but dispersed throughout Pluto unevenly suspended in frozen rock hard ice.
For this model to work Pluto must have been or is still being liquefied in order for the dust/silicate to separate from the frozen ice.
Even at a density of 1.86 it doesn’t necessarily mean that Pluto is differentiated. It means there are materials in Pluto that are heavier than water one obvious material is nitrogen which is only slightly denser than water. One scientist put it to me like this. Since Pluto's density is 1.86 and we don't see rock on the surface we conclude it has a rocky core. This is a somewhat reasonable albeit simplified conclusion considering Callisto.
Callisto is a Jupiter moon with a density of 1.83, twice the diameter of Pluto, is considered partially differentiated or even uniform yet has no rock on it's surface. To simply say we don't see rock on an icy body with a density greater than one and conclude it is, therefore, differentiated is to completely ignore other examples which don't support this conclusion.
For this model to work Pluto must have been or is still being liquefied in order for the dust/silicate to separate from the frozen ice.
Even at a density of 1.86 it doesn’t necessarily mean that Pluto is differentiated. It means there are materials in Pluto that are heavier than water one obvious material is nitrogen which is only slightly denser than water. One scientist put it to me like this. Since Pluto's density is 1.86 and we don't see rock on the surface we conclude it has a rocky core. This is a somewhat reasonable albeit simplified conclusion considering Callisto.
Callisto is a Jupiter moon with a density of 1.83, twice the diameter of Pluto, is considered partially differentiated or even uniform yet has no rock on it's surface. To simply say we don't see rock on an icy body with a density greater than one and conclude it is, therefore, differentiated is to completely ignore other examples which don't support this conclusion.
|
On Earth we assume there is a liquid iron core which has a density of 7.8 which is more than twice that of silicate rock yet there is iron on Earth’s rocky surface due to pressure released by volcanoes.
If the fluid we see on the surface of Pluto is more dense than the ice crust, doesn’t it stand to reason liquid nitrogen is being forced up from below and this is likely the fluid or ocean of material below Pluto’s surface which is causing its crustal cracks and expansion. Nitrogen when frozen constricts unlike water which expands. When nitrogen migrates from a frozen to fluid state it expands. We see evidence of Pluto’s surface stretching along with fluid nitrogen which is likely causing the expanding and stretching fractures. |
There are certainly expansion fractures on Pluto. Subsurface nitrogen under increased pressure could easily be heated by that pressure enough to become a liquid. The nitrogen would then naturally expand fracturing the ice crust above it and seep out similar to what we see at SP.
In the Ice Shell paper, 8 to 10 assumptions have to be made in order to create this differentiated core model with a water ocean which is freezing and expanding. That’s a bit much for me. Any mathematical model can be created with enough assumptions and just because math can be used to support assumptions doesn’t make those initial assumptions correct.
One of this paper's assumptions is built off a paper written by F. Nimmo called Thermal evolution of Pluto and implications for surface tectonics and a subsurface ocean, In Nimmo's paper they make a further assumption We assume an initially differentiated structure but this conflicts with Robin Canup's collision model in which she can't get two colliding bodies to survive the collision unless they start out as uniform not differentiated. Then neither body in Robin's model heats enough to become fully differentiated.
The opening premise of the Ice Shell paper is that Since there is no evidence for recent compressional tectonic features, we argue that ice II has not formed and that Pluto's ocean has likely survived to present day. This is completely incorrect which one could argue leaves the rest of the paper's conclusions irrelevant. It seems scientists are building assumption upon assumption to build models.
Einstein made one assumption called the cosmological constant (Lambda) in order to make his mathematical model of the universe stable (non expanding). Einstein said "God did not roll the dice when he created the universe". This one assumption with the math symbol lambda to support it proved wrong and the cosmological constant had to be removed in order to allow the math to tell a more accurate and different story. The universe is expanding and apparently god does roll the dice, well gods don't, the universe does. This was an assumption Einstein couldn't get past so he made the math fit his mythical assumption.
Some refer to this mathematical type of science as mythematical science and I'm beginning to understand why. While math modeling has its place and can help us understand potential probabilities of various scenarios, it seems these days if someone can write a formula then that fact alone is proof their concept is correct and journalist immediately jump on board heralding the wonders of the concept just so they can be the first to regurgitate the story. This regurgitation then becomes confirmation of the concept and this then is used as a future reference in support of the concept.
One of this paper's assumptions is built off a paper written by F. Nimmo called Thermal evolution of Pluto and implications for surface tectonics and a subsurface ocean, In Nimmo's paper they make a further assumption We assume an initially differentiated structure but this conflicts with Robin Canup's collision model in which she can't get two colliding bodies to survive the collision unless they start out as uniform not differentiated. Then neither body in Robin's model heats enough to become fully differentiated.
The opening premise of the Ice Shell paper is that Since there is no evidence for recent compressional tectonic features, we argue that ice II has not formed and that Pluto's ocean has likely survived to present day. This is completely incorrect which one could argue leaves the rest of the paper's conclusions irrelevant. It seems scientists are building assumption upon assumption to build models.
Einstein made one assumption called the cosmological constant (Lambda) in order to make his mathematical model of the universe stable (non expanding). Einstein said "God did not roll the dice when he created the universe". This one assumption with the math symbol lambda to support it proved wrong and the cosmological constant had to be removed in order to allow the math to tell a more accurate and different story. The universe is expanding and apparently god does roll the dice, well gods don't, the universe does. This was an assumption Einstein couldn't get past so he made the math fit his mythical assumption.
Some refer to this mathematical type of science as mythematical science and I'm beginning to understand why. While math modeling has its place and can help us understand potential probabilities of various scenarios, it seems these days if someone can write a formula then that fact alone is proof their concept is correct and journalist immediately jump on board heralding the wonders of the concept just so they can be the first to regurgitate the story. This regurgitation then becomes confirmation of the concept and this then is used as a future reference in support of the concept.
|
Something else I struggle with regarding most scientific statements is how most of them assume all activities which created the planets and moons in our solar system took place in the first 500 million years then everything seems to have stopped for 4 billion years.
Our solar system is in a continual process of change. From 1994 to 2013 (19 years) there have been 556 bolide (asteroid) impacts on Earth. Pluto's thin atmosphere unlike ours would not destroy these small objects before they impacted it's surface. Let me repeat that fact, |
|
556 Earth impacts in 19 years.
222 impact craters popped up on our moon over the last 7 years.
Quote from the article
The moon's surface is completely turned over in around 80,000 years – not millions of years as once thought.
Pluto/Charon are likewise an active place (albeit less so than Earth) and are probably impacted more than commonly accepted.
Quote from the article
The moon's surface is completely turned over in around 80,000 years – not millions of years as once thought.
Pluto/Charon are likewise an active place (albeit less so than Earth) and are probably impacted more than commonly accepted.
This means our solar system is a very dynamic active place.
|
Neptune has created a gravitational low pressure pocket where objects from the Kuiper Belt are coalesced and focused into a 2:3 resonant frequency zone. These Kuiper Belt Object's (KBO) captured in a 2:3 resonance are called Plutinos. This forces some KBO's to cluster together and is likely how Pluto was formed and is still being formed to this day.
While 90482 Orcus is in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune, it is 180 degrees out of phase with Pluto, 1994 JR1 is captured in this 2:3 resonance and is in phase with Pluto and there are many more of these same type objects we know about and many we don't. This clustering of KBO's and subsequent impacts is likely what causes Pluto/Charon to be regularly bombarded by objects which cause some regular planetary growth. |
|
PolishPlanetPursuer's model on page 30 fits closely to what I'm trying to express. Pluto has been hit by many different sized and density objects which create melt points via shock waves on the surface, the evidence of which is everywhere.
|
With this gradual growth due to impacts, 35-55 K temperatures would keep water ice rock hard infused with silicate rock (aka dust) mostly trapped in suspension. This slow process of growth by impacts wouldn't give the silicate gravel ample ability to separate out of the rock hard ice to any significant degree but would allow it to sink below the surface.
The Ice Shell paper suggest 5% ammonia mixed with water could have lowered Pluto's subsurface water's melt point to 250K.
The Ice Shell paper suggest 5% ammonia mixed with water could have lowered Pluto's subsurface water's melt point to 250K.
|
The paper also suggest an additional factor of pressure would have lowered the melt point further but the paper looses me with its complexity and assumptions at this point and does not specify a temperature which is reached due to pressure and other salts mixed with the water.
According to the Ice Shell paper Pluto has an active hot radioactive core from the Pluto/Charon impact this along with their early tidal stresses from 4 billion years ago have kept the interior hot and the water ocean in a liquid form for 4 billion years which is only now freezing and expanding. |
This is the surface of Charon, the green spots are amonia
|
If the subsurface pressure is capable of getting water ice to melt then it would have to pass by the much lower melt point of nitrogen first. The temp and pressure needed to liquefy nitrogen is far less than for water. The paper assumes the presence of ammonia on Pluto and new evidence of ammonia on 3 of the other 4 moons strongly suggest it exists on Pluto. Ammonia lowers the melting point of water from 273 K to 173 K.
Ammonia is found on the surface of Charon but we don't know at what concentration levels and Charon appears to be frozen solid, you need more than ammonia alone to create liquid water you need heat and or pressure. If there's no radioactive core then there's no liquid ocean.
Ammonia is found on the surface of Charon but we don't know at what concentration levels and Charon appears to be frozen solid, you need more than ammonia alone to create liquid water you need heat and or pressure. If there's no radioactive core then there's no liquid ocean.
The above image is NASA's definition of Density and Differentiation.
Take special note of differentiation and how it requires a warming process to separate out the materials, I maintain Pluto is too cold for this process to have separated out materials sufficiently to create a solid radioactive currently active hot core.
I just can't get past or ignore the 35 degree Kelvin temperature and the relative slow growth process which I believe Pluto has experienced as evidenced by its current localized geological activities. 35 degrees Kelvin is pretty cold and Pluto didn't just blow up to its current size instantly then stop. It took a long time and a lot of small, medium and large impacts to build it up gradually to what it is now and I think these impacts are still building it to this day at a slower rate.
Take special note of differentiation and how it requires a warming process to separate out the materials, I maintain Pluto is too cold for this process to have separated out materials sufficiently to create a solid radioactive currently active hot core.
I just can't get past or ignore the 35 degree Kelvin temperature and the relative slow growth process which I believe Pluto has experienced as evidenced by its current localized geological activities. 35 degrees Kelvin is pretty cold and Pluto didn't just blow up to its current size instantly then stop. It took a long time and a lot of small, medium and large impacts to build it up gradually to what it is now and I think these impacts are still building it to this day at a slower rate.
|
Quote from a Francis Nimmo paper
5.2 Heat Production For the icy satellites, there are three main sources of heat: accretion, radioactive decay, and tidal heating. Even for Ganymede-size satellites, the gravitational energy released during accretion is rather modest, so that initial differentiation is not guaranteed [Barr and Canup, 2008]. (Ganymede's radius of 2,634 km is more than twice Pluto's 1,187 km) If accretion happens sufficiently rapidly, some melting will take place [e.g., Lunine and Stevenson, 1982], but the overall contribution to the existence of present-day oceans is minor to negligible. |
|
The below image of Charon shows how an impactor generates enough heat to briefly liquefy some of the rock hard water ice surface. This would allow denser materials to quickly drop below the surface (making them undetectable) but then get trapped in the rapidly refrozen water ice. This is likely why we don't see silicate rock on the surface. But as Nimmo , Lunine and Stevenson indicate this would play a minor to negligible roll in creating subsurface oceans. I'm suggesting it also plays a minor roll in creating a fully differentiated core.
Tidal flexing and radiation heat are the most likely candidate but for planets with core radius' less than 1,000 km the radioactive core concept is not feasible Pluto's core radius is at most 475 km but if Robin Canup's collision model is used then the core is more likely only 190 km.
F. Nimmo Quote
For a silicate core >1000 km in radius the heat diffusion timescale is longer than the age of the solar system, so large silicate cores provide a long-term reservoir of energy which can potentially maintain a subsurface ocean. Conversely, for bodies with small silicate core radii like Enceladus or Tethys, (Enceladus potential core 161km, Tethys density =.984 (less than water?). Pluto's maximum potential core 475km) ancient heat cannot be stored in this manner.
This only leaves us with tidal flex as an option. Even though there is currently no known tidal flex heat energy being produced between Pluto and Charon in later pages I explain why tidal flex is a viable contributor to some of the processes we see on Pluto (its related to gyroscopic torque and Milankovitch cycles).
Tidal flexing and radiation heat are the most likely candidate but for planets with core radius' less than 1,000 km the radioactive core concept is not feasible Pluto's core radius is at most 475 km but if Robin Canup's collision model is used then the core is more likely only 190 km.
F. Nimmo Quote
For a silicate core >1000 km in radius the heat diffusion timescale is longer than the age of the solar system, so large silicate cores provide a long-term reservoir of energy which can potentially maintain a subsurface ocean. Conversely, for bodies with small silicate core radii like Enceladus or Tethys, (Enceladus potential core 161km, Tethys density =.984 (less than water?). Pluto's maximum potential core 475km) ancient heat cannot be stored in this manner.
This only leaves us with tidal flex as an option. Even though there is currently no known tidal flex heat energy being produced between Pluto and Charon in later pages I explain why tidal flex is a viable contributor to some of the processes we see on Pluto (its related to gyroscopic torque and Milankovitch cycles).
Look away, I'm about to moon the paper
Let me approach this Ice Shell paper's conclusion from a slightly different angle.
Our moon was theoretically created from molten material that coalesced as the result of an object that collided with Earth.
Our moon was theoretically once a complete ball of molten material from Theia collision, liquid hot from outer edge to inner core.
Our moon is about one third larger than Pluto and Pluto's mass is only 17.7% of the moon.
Our moon is geologically dead as 4 billion years has passed since its molten formation allowing enough time for it to cool.
Our moon's orbit is eccentric which causes tidal stretching and heating of the moon
Our moon's density is 3.344 grams per centimeter cubed yet mostly uniform with a tiny core
Our moon has frozen water at its poles.
Our moon is only 1 AU from the Sun
Our moon can reach temperatures as high as 390º K (240º F or 116º C). Water boils at sea level on earth at 212º F or 100º C
Pluto was built up slowly by accretion
Pluto was theoretically hit by Charon while uniform and only 40% of material at most was heated to the point of separation
Pluto has a fraction of the mass of our moon at 17.7%
Pluto is geologically alive unlike our moon.
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked with no stretching and deformation forces imparted internally.
Pluto is belching out nitrogen from below and is stretching and growing.
Pluto's density is 1.86 grams per cubic centimeter yet is supposed to be fully differentiated while Callisto is not.
Pluto has water ice floating atop a more dense nitrogen fluid that is being forced up from below
Pluto is 40 AU from the sun with very little heat energy delivered by the sun.
Pluto is 35 degrees Kelvin or -233C or -387F.
Pluto is supposed to have a currently radioactively hot core
Our moon was theoretically formed from molten hot liquid, is nearly a third larger than Pluto, much more massive, closer to the Sun, reaches really hot temperatures, is tidally stretched by its eccentric orbit and is mostly uniform at 3.344 g/cm3 and yet it doesn't have enough heat energy to be geologically active after 4 Gyr.
Our moon was theoretically created from molten material that coalesced as the result of an object that collided with Earth.
Our moon was theoretically once a complete ball of molten material from Theia collision, liquid hot from outer edge to inner core.
Our moon is about one third larger than Pluto and Pluto's mass is only 17.7% of the moon.
Our moon is geologically dead as 4 billion years has passed since its molten formation allowing enough time for it to cool.
Our moon's orbit is eccentric which causes tidal stretching and heating of the moon
Our moon's density is 3.344 grams per centimeter cubed yet mostly uniform with a tiny core
Our moon has frozen water at its poles.
Our moon is only 1 AU from the Sun
Our moon can reach temperatures as high as 390º K (240º F or 116º C). Water boils at sea level on earth at 212º F or 100º C
Pluto was built up slowly by accretion
Pluto was theoretically hit by Charon while uniform and only 40% of material at most was heated to the point of separation
Pluto has a fraction of the mass of our moon at 17.7%
Pluto is geologically alive unlike our moon.
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked with no stretching and deformation forces imparted internally.
Pluto is belching out nitrogen from below and is stretching and growing.
Pluto's density is 1.86 grams per cubic centimeter yet is supposed to be fully differentiated while Callisto is not.
Pluto has water ice floating atop a more dense nitrogen fluid that is being forced up from below
Pluto is 40 AU from the sun with very little heat energy delivered by the sun.
Pluto is 35 degrees Kelvin or -233C or -387F.
Pluto is supposed to have a currently radioactively hot core
Our moon was theoretically formed from molten hot liquid, is nearly a third larger than Pluto, much more massive, closer to the Sun, reaches really hot temperatures, is tidally stretched by its eccentric orbit and is mostly uniform at 3.344 g/cm3 and yet it doesn't have enough heat energy to be geologically active after 4 Gyr.
|
Riddle me this batman. How can an object like Pluto which is so small, so cold and so far from any energy source (other than impacts) relative to the moon be assumed to have a differentiated radioactive core of silicate rock (same rock as our moon at a fraction of the volume), still be actively hot sustaining a subsurface ocean of water after the all encompassing 4 to 4.5 billion year time frame?? |
In the case of the Moon we are dealing with mostly rock and iron while on Pluto its rock and ice. To some people this is not a fair comparison (as one scientist put it, melting rock compared to melting ice requires different levels of energy). But this Ice Shell paper and other scientists are trying to suggest that the silicate rock that makes up the bulk of the moon is the same silicate material that is melting ice into water on Pluto even though ice exists on the moon at its poles indicating the rock is not hot enough to remove it unless the moons surface ice is exposed to the heat energy of the sun.
I know this argument can be picked apart as well (depth, insulation and pressure). My discussion on page 10 about the Galilean moon's trend of decreasing densities is probably a more relevant comparison.
Let's get to the core of the issue, what I'm saying is this.
Pluto's expansion fractures can be more reasonably explained by processes other than residual 4 Gyr radioactive heat.
Pluto is still growing via impactors which contain the ice, dust, silicate, nitrogen, methane mix. Layers of this material are, over time, laid down and built up. The weight of surface ices in turn increase subsurface pressures which compresses and heats the nitrogen to its triple point where it converts, below ground, to gas and liquid. In it's liquid and gas state it expands creating cracks and cryovolcanoes which, in turn, have created an atmosphere and an ocean of nitrogen at SP whose out flowing mass has created both expansion and compressional features.
There is absolutely no need to conjure up concepts of a radioactive core to explain the geological processes we see on Pluto.
I know this argument can be picked apart as well (depth, insulation and pressure). My discussion on page 10 about the Galilean moon's trend of decreasing densities is probably a more relevant comparison.
Let's get to the core of the issue, what I'm saying is this.
Pluto's expansion fractures can be more reasonably explained by processes other than residual 4 Gyr radioactive heat.
Pluto is still growing via impactors which contain the ice, dust, silicate, nitrogen, methane mix. Layers of this material are, over time, laid down and built up. The weight of surface ices in turn increase subsurface pressures which compresses and heats the nitrogen to its triple point where it converts, below ground, to gas and liquid. In it's liquid and gas state it expands creating cracks and cryovolcanoes which, in turn, have created an atmosphere and an ocean of nitrogen at SP whose out flowing mass has created both expansion and compressional features.
There is absolutely no need to conjure up concepts of a radioactive core to explain the geological processes we see on Pluto.
