July 23rd 2016
I'm bouncing around here as I originally wanted this page to be about a possible differentiated radioactive core scenario but something else is tugging on me right now.
Pluto's tilt has been bugging me for some time now.
A popular common concept about what causes planets to be tilted is impacts.
If impacts cause planets to rotate into a tilted position then why do the planets stop at particular angles?
I think there is more to the story than simple impacts.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless impacted on by another force (Newtons law of inertia).
If a planet were impacted, knocking it off its original vertical axial orientation why doesn't the planet keep tumbling? If a planet like Uranus was hit hard enough to spin it 98 degrees why wouldn’t it keep going. If a planet like Pluto was hit hard enough to spin it over 120 degrees it surely would have kept going. Wouldn’t it? And then there's Venus tilted 177 degrees with no moon.
Most moons orbit around a planet's equator just as our solar system's planets mostly orbit around the Sun's equator.
Quote from "Ask an Astronomer"
A moon on an inclined (tilted) orbit, passing above and below the equator of the planet, will have its tidal bulge constantly moving up and down. The movement of the bulge leads to friction and heat. That friction acts to try to stop the moon from going up and down, that is, decrease its inclination, or make it orbit around the equator of the planet.
It takes less than a billion years for tidal friction to make the orbit of most moons equatorial. If a moon is in an inclined orbit, then astronomers have a puzzle to solve.
Pluto's tilt has been bugging me for some time now.
A popular common concept about what causes planets to be tilted is impacts.
If impacts cause planets to rotate into a tilted position then why do the planets stop at particular angles?
I think there is more to the story than simple impacts.
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless impacted on by another force (Newtons law of inertia).
If a planet were impacted, knocking it off its original vertical axial orientation why doesn't the planet keep tumbling? If a planet like Uranus was hit hard enough to spin it 98 degrees why wouldn’t it keep going. If a planet like Pluto was hit hard enough to spin it over 120 degrees it surely would have kept going. Wouldn’t it? And then there's Venus tilted 177 degrees with no moon.
Most moons orbit around a planet's equator just as our solar system's planets mostly orbit around the Sun's equator.
Quote from "Ask an Astronomer"
A moon on an inclined (tilted) orbit, passing above and below the equator of the planet, will have its tidal bulge constantly moving up and down. The movement of the bulge leads to friction and heat. That friction acts to try to stop the moon from going up and down, that is, decrease its inclination, or make it orbit around the equator of the planet.
It takes less than a billion years for tidal friction to make the orbit of most moons equatorial. If a moon is in an inclined orbit, then astronomers have a puzzle to solve.
Uranus at a 90 degree tilt
|
Based on the concept of impacts producing axial tilt, all planets must have been impacted only once over a billion years ago.
Take Uranus with its 98 degree tilt. Why wouldn't a later impact turn Uranus to some other angle in turn offsetting its moon's orbits relative to its equator? For Uranus' moon's to be aligned with its equator the whole system of planet and moons must have slowly turned onto its side suggesting this is not an impact scenario further suggesting other planet tilt's are also not impact related. For something to turn a planet on its side, the impact energy would have to be enormous and the planet wouldn't rotate to 98 or 120 degrees then just stop it would keep rotating. 
|
I think I have clearly shown using NASA's crater counting age dating method that Pluto's moons are not 4 billion years old but are more likely from the impact at Mordor and that Mordor created Sputnik Planitia making them relatively young and yet all their small satellites align with Pluto/Charon's equatorial spin.
|
Here's a cool time lapse video of Uranus and its moons over a four year period.
There must be something more going on which can describe axial tilt. Like me, Miles Matthis does not accept the impact idea and has theorized the axial tilt of planets is due Electro-Magnetism from the Sun and planets and he seems to be a pretty smart scientist. I don't understand his math or completely follow his logic but reading his thoughts at least opened the door for me to explore my own alternative theory as impacts are not the only possible explanation for axial tilt. |
|
This is what my limited knowledge has created as a possible scenario for the tilt of planets and more specifically Pluto and Charon.
I'm calling it buoyancy.
I'm calling it buoyancy.
My Buoyancy Idea
Consider for a moment that planets especially frozen ones like Pluto are not a ball of uniformly distributed masses.
Instead they contain an irregular distribution of masses within their bodies.
For example, lets say a large object composed primarily of iron collided with Pluto on it's north pole and this iron froze into place at the north pole as it didn't generate enough energy to melt through to the core (slow impact). A long time later an object primarily of ice impacted in the center freezing in place. Then later still, a large object mostly composed of radioactive silicate rock impacted on the south pole heating and melting some of the ices allowing fluids to seek out their own equilibrium.
These impacts would produce a wide range of density variations contained within Pluto's frozen subsurface. This would make Pluto's mass distribution lopsided, uneven or partially differentiated.
Instead they contain an irregular distribution of masses within their bodies.
For example, lets say a large object composed primarily of iron collided with Pluto on it's north pole and this iron froze into place at the north pole as it didn't generate enough energy to melt through to the core (slow impact). A long time later an object primarily of ice impacted in the center freezing in place. Then later still, a large object mostly composed of radioactive silicate rock impacted on the south pole heating and melting some of the ices allowing fluids to seek out their own equilibrium.
These impacts would produce a wide range of density variations contained within Pluto's frozen subsurface. This would make Pluto's mass distribution lopsided, uneven or partially differentiated.
|
<<<<<<<<
Consider how a buoy works in the ocean as it rides undulating waves. As the waves rise and fall the buoy angles or tilts in relation to the wave pattern. >>>>>>>> The buoy is heavily weighted at the bottom to keep it upright just like ships have ballast tanks to keep them upright. As they ride these waves they are tilted. |
|
|
>>>>>>>> If you were to relocate the heavier more massive weight which is designed to keep the buoy upright to a location other than at the bottom of the buoy lets say at 3 or 9 o'clock, it would rest in the water at a tilted 90 degree angle. >>>>>>>> |
|
|
Space Waves
Galaxies and solar systems develop spiral or ringed patterns displaying the undulating gravity pulses established by black holes or stars.
Galaxies forming around Black holes in spiral wave patterns
Solar system's forming from dust and gasses in the Orion Nebulae
Solar systems form in Nebulae clouds
|
Solar systems organize gasses into rings or waves
|
Perhaps the planets have a tilt relative to their uneven mass distributions as they ride the troughs and crests of the waves of distorted space time created by the Sun and planets gravitational interactions.
While the spin of the Sun would have initially set up the spin of the planets their uneven distribution of mass would have tilted their axes to orient that spin in an angular pattern. |
Consider space time and the waves produced by the Sun and planets gravitational undulations with the subsequent troughs and crests. Think of it like throwing rocks into a calm lake, the ripples or waves are visualizations of what we don't see taking place in space but we see its effect as objects cluster into zones. 
|
What I'm suggesting is that Planets are not turned on their side by impacts but rather by the irregular distribution of mass contained within their interior. As their mass dictates, they topple over relative to their orbital plane and what edge of the wave they are riding.
|
This then could suggest that Pluto and Charon being of compositionally different materials (at least on the surface) perhaps did not collide.
Pluto is most likely a classical Kuiper belt object (cubewano) while Charon is instead a captured object perturbed into Pluto's orbital path by Neptune. Most of the surface material on Charon is water ice but below the surface there may a great deal of other materials with varying degrees of mass dispersed unevenly. |
Charon is in a near circular orbit with Pluto and it is reasoned that it takes time for gravitationally captured objects to establish circular orbits and with that amount of time it suggests Charon has been in orbit for long enough to produce tholin but since it hasn't it may then be a captured object from at least 1 billion years ago. Mercury (near the Sun) in conflict with this theory has theoretically been around for 4.5 billion years (long enough to establish a circular orbit) but its orbit is nearly as eccentric as Pluto's so saying that circular orbits equal 1 billion years of time may be a bit misleading.
Now with one swift blow, I will attempt to destroy this buoyancy theory of mine aka uneven mass distribution concept.
Now with one swift blow, I will attempt to destroy this buoyancy theory of mine aka uneven mass distribution concept.
Time to Tear it down
|
|
Take a spinning gyroscope with its largest mass at it's equator, turn it on its side supported on one end and it stays there seemingly defying gravity. That one simple picture potentially blows my above theory away. Not completely though, while a gyroscope will stay in its new orientation if placed on its side, it will rotate around its axis perpendicularly. This buoyancy model may still have some merit. But the gyroscope makes me wonder. |
|
This gyroscope idea got me thinking, what if Uranus is turning perpendicular to its axis. Maybe its just turning so slowly we don't detect it.
A gyroscope's largest mass spins rapidly in line with its axis and when turned at a 90 degree angle, it stays at that angle but rotates perpendicular to that spin only much slower. Perhaps we can detect the axial spin of Uranus but not the slow perpendicular rotation or perhaps we haven't looked for this scenario. |
|
|
On Earth we have the precession of the equinox (our axis precesses in a cone shape every 26,000 years). It wobbles 2 degrees within that precession. Perhaps that's either this gyroscopic slow spin or it could also be an imbalance in the distribution of mass within our planet.
I'm kinda leaning toward the gyroscopic concept but then what initiates the tilt if not an imbalance of mass. That would, however, mean that both Pluto and Uranus also have an axis wobble that matches the angle of their tilt. Pluto's wobble is 24 degrees while the tilt of its axis is turned over 120. In other words its axial tilt oscillates from 102 to 126 degrees. The Earths wobble is about 2 degrees and its tilt is 24. It is believed the moon keeps our Earth's tilt from wobbling so much. |
|
|
|
With Charon at half the size of Pluto and 1/8th the mass while in a close proximity of 19,570 km, you would think it could keep Pluto's wobble more stable. This suggest to me the two planets haven't been orbiting each other long enough to stabilize Pluto's axial wobble.
The Earth's moon is a mere 1/80th its mass or from a Charon to Pluto ratio it is ten times less massive. Our Moon is 384,400 km away or 19.64 times further than Charon is to Pluto yet it has stabilized the Earth's wobble down to 2 degrees in 4.5 billion years. Charon is 10 times more massive relative to Pluto than our moon is to Earth and 19 times closer but it has not stabilized Pluto's wobble so they don't appear to have been orbiting each other long enough to calm down.
While I like the gyroscope scenario, my buoyancy or uneven mass distribution scenario seems to be easier to envision with Pluto being turned over 120 degrees and wobbling only 24. In other words, its uneven mass distribution is top heavy but offset a few degrees from center creating a 120 degree tilted axis and 24 degree wobbling north pole relative to its ecliptic plane. Hmm, perhaps its uneven distribution of mass tipped it over and Charon's pull creates its wobble. I'm so confused.
Bottom line, for me, is that I don't care for the impact theory causing planetary tilt it makes no sense when you look at Uranus and its many equatorial aligned moons. I guess that means I don't like the gyroscope idea as it seems to naturally require an impact for it to work, However, watching videos on gyroscopic precession makes it an extremely desirable theory. Basically, I'm in a state of confusion.
But what if I combine the gyroscope and the uneven mass distribution idea into one?
Out of confusion order
Its funny how my confusion came from trying to think of my buoyancy hypothesis and the gyroscopic hypothesis as two different things.
Putting the two concepts together seems to work better. There must be imbalances in the distribution of mass in a planet and as the planet spins like a gyroscope those imbalances factor into the axial tilt and its gyroscopic precession. The planet's initial vertical axis spin likely occurred as a result of the Sun's enormous influence in accreting materials but eventually the local spin and uneven mass distribution of each individual planet set the axial tilt to an angle that balanced each system's planet and moon mass to their collective spins with the precession which works to balance the torque created by the spin within the entire system.
Since that's a mouth full, simply put, the tilt is due to spin and uneven mass distribution within the entire system not just the individual planet that is of course unless the planet doesn't have moons like Venus then it is simply a tilt based on its proximity to the Sun, its spin and its planetary mass distributions.
Putting the two concepts together seems to work better. There must be imbalances in the distribution of mass in a planet and as the planet spins like a gyroscope those imbalances factor into the axial tilt and its gyroscopic precession. The planet's initial vertical axis spin likely occurred as a result of the Sun's enormous influence in accreting materials but eventually the local spin and uneven mass distribution of each individual planet set the axial tilt to an angle that balanced each system's planet and moon mass to their collective spins with the precession which works to balance the torque created by the spin within the entire system.
Since that's a mouth full, simply put, the tilt is due to spin and uneven mass distribution within the entire system not just the individual planet that is of course unless the planet doesn't have moons like Venus then it is simply a tilt based on its proximity to the Sun, its spin and its planetary mass distributions.
|
We can see evidence of nitrogen fluid like material bubbling up from below the surface of Pluto at Sputnik Planitia. Whether there is an ocean of water or an ocean of tooth paste consistent nitrogen, there is a semi viscous fluid beneath the crust of Pluto. This means the outer surface could shift relative to the inner core whether that core is icy or rocky. An imbalance of mass along with the gyroscopic spin effect would allow Pluto to topple over. As the spin acts to stabilize the system, a precession in the axis occurs as its interior shifts back and forth adjusting against the torque created by the outer crust's spin. Even if the inner core and outer crust spin primarily together some shifting and speed variances would exist which in turn cause the tilt and wobble. |
|
Here's a video of Eric Laithwaite's talk on Gyroscopes. One interesting fact in this video is the slower the gyro spins the closer the spin speed matches the orbital speed.
Another interesting fact presented, near the end of the presentation, as the young boy's rotation speed was changed, the gyro's axis rose and fell accordingly. While our eight planet's orbital speed around the Sun digresses with distance, their axial spin rate seems completely arbitrary. Professor Laithwaite's full talk is an hour long and if you enjoyed his 15 minute version as much as I did you might also want to watch the full video here. |
|
|
Here's a video related to gyroscopic tilt, don't get hung up on the fact the guy thinks the earth is flat just fast forward to the 20 minute mark. As a pilot this guy knows you have to reset a plane's gyroscopic compass frequently as it drifts out of alignment. He has theorized turbulence causes gyroscopic alignment drift so he wobbles the Z axis to demonstrate the turbulent effect on a gyroscope.
Regardless of his philosophy about the earth, his experiment has educational value. Notice too, he has had to add putty to balance the gyroscope else it would tilt to a balanced angle. This effect likely explains how planets get into their tilted positions. |
|
|
In a planet with a core and a crust with a fluid separating them, they spin mostly in unison but uneven mass distributions cause slight wobbles which then offset the tilt of the planet slowly over time.
Here's a good video to demonstrate this point of gyroscopic stability or its ability to resist change. From a gyroscopic point of view small perturbations like turbulence have a greater impact on axial alignment than one massive instantaneous hit, Both individual scenarios (buoyancy/gyroscopic) have weaknesses and strengths but combining them seems to blend the strengths of each concept. No impact is required and we get a tilted axis along with precession or wobble. |
|
Torque Induced Tilt Model (TIT)
This concept is really starting to make sense to me as a planet is basically a gyroscope with uneven mass distributions.
Gyroscopic spin and gravitational torque induced onto two spheres separated by a fluid with uneven mass distribution is what causes axial tilt and precession. Uneven mass distribution in a gyroscopically spinning object inducing gravitational torque producing an axial tilt is a mouthful so I will simply refer to it as torque induced tilt or TIT.
To me, this idea destroys the Pluto/Charon impact theory especially when one looks at Uranus with all its moons aligned with the equatorial plane of spin set at 98 degrees. All of Pluto's moon's orbits align with its equator or center of spin at 120 degrees. The small moon's poles (obliquity) don't align to Pluto/Charon's but their orbits do.
Update Dec 15, 2017
Pluto's axis wobbles from 102 to 126 degrees every 2.4 million years. In order for all its satellites to be aligned currently with Pluto's equator indicates that as Pluto wobbles it takes the smaller satellites along for the ride. The entire system wobbles.
The center line of spin sends out pulsating perpendicular waves of gravitational torque induced by uneven mass distributions creating a zone where objects coalesce along a tangent line (equator) like we see at Saturn's rings and the alignment of our planets to the Sun or the moons as they are organized around Uranus. As objects get further away from their parent body gravitational spin source or torque force and other forces interfere then the organization of bodies or masses along the center of spin diminishes by the square of the distance which seems to be a universal law. This is why localized systems are tilted at angles against their orbital plane to the Sun. Localized gravitational torque forces overcome more distant torque forces.
While I've already suggested there can be two spherical bodies separated by a fluid, there's no reason why there couldn't be 3 or 4 spheres one contained within the other like the Matryoshka or Russian dolls where one is layered inside the other. One could assume a planet has a core a mantle and a crust (like earth) each separated by a fluid.
Gyroscopic spin and gravitational torque induced onto two spheres separated by a fluid with uneven mass distribution is what causes axial tilt and precession. Uneven mass distribution in a gyroscopically spinning object inducing gravitational torque producing an axial tilt is a mouthful so I will simply refer to it as torque induced tilt or TIT.
To me, this idea destroys the Pluto/Charon impact theory especially when one looks at Uranus with all its moons aligned with the equatorial plane of spin set at 98 degrees. All of Pluto's moon's orbits align with its equator or center of spin at 120 degrees. The small moon's poles (obliquity) don't align to Pluto/Charon's but their orbits do.
Update Dec 15, 2017
Pluto's axis wobbles from 102 to 126 degrees every 2.4 million years. In order for all its satellites to be aligned currently with Pluto's equator indicates that as Pluto wobbles it takes the smaller satellites along for the ride. The entire system wobbles.
The center line of spin sends out pulsating perpendicular waves of gravitational torque induced by uneven mass distributions creating a zone where objects coalesce along a tangent line (equator) like we see at Saturn's rings and the alignment of our planets to the Sun or the moons as they are organized around Uranus. As objects get further away from their parent body gravitational spin source or torque force and other forces interfere then the organization of bodies or masses along the center of spin diminishes by the square of the distance which seems to be a universal law. This is why localized systems are tilted at angles against their orbital plane to the Sun. Localized gravitational torque forces overcome more distant torque forces.
While I've already suggested there can be two spherical bodies separated by a fluid, there's no reason why there couldn't be 3 or 4 spheres one contained within the other like the Matryoshka or Russian dolls where one is layered inside the other. One could assume a planet has a core a mantle and a crust (like earth) each separated by a fluid.
|
As long as there is a fluid between the hollowed spheres and a spin is induced along with uneven mass, gyroscopic torque along with gravity would set up any number of tilt and precession wobble scenarios.
Expand the Matryoshka concept outward to a body in space and the spherical layers extend to moons. In other words the fluid in this case becomes space itself or the distance from the surfaces of the planet to the first moon. The outer layers of the sphere become the orbital uneven mass of the moons. Expand this concept to any number of moons. Or remove all the moons like on Venus, as long as there is a sphere within a sphere with uneven mass distributions separated by a fluid then you will have axial tilt with precession. |
In the case of Mercury it has one 70% metallic or iron core and 30% silicate rock mantle and a thin crust as all the liquid has been boiled away and the central spinning force of the Sun's equatorial torque takes over Mercury's axial tilt making it nearly zero. With such a massive and evenly distributed heavy iron core the uneven mass distribution of the mantle and crust have little effect on Mercury's tilt. The heavy uniform iron core or round ball sets the basis for the axial tilt. Its dense iron core aligned with the Sun's equator stands straight up with the most vertical axial tilt of all the planets.
|
With the TIT concept the whole planet/moon system finds their own equilibrium of tilt and precession depending on gyroscopic spin speed, gravitational torque, number of layers and mass distribution.
When I began this page I had no idea I would end up with this conclusion. I began by building a buoyancy model and because of my willingness to tear it apart with the gyroscopic model and face complete confusion, I came up with a unique model I've never heard expressed elsewhere and one I think best describes the cause of axial tilt and precession in planets. |
|
Notice the impact's location, considering it disrupted the terrain on the opposite side of this planet which is primarily composed of rock and iron, this impact should have spun Mercury on its side. But just like a spinning gyroscope with angular momentum, Mercury resists attempts to change its balanced tilt angle. |
<<<<<<<<<
The yellow impact top center of this image of Mercury was massive. Its the largest impact on Mercury and its named Caloris. It hit so hard that it sent shock waves through and around to the opposite side creating a zone called the Weird Terrain. 
|
If impacts tilt planets on their axis, Mercury should have been rotated by this hit but it wasn’t.
This is further evidence suggesting that planets are gyroscopically and gravitationally adjusted to their natural TIT angle based on their uneven mass distribution and not impacts. This gyroscopic ability to keep the planet at its optimum angle of tilt based on mass distribution prevented this planet from being knocked over by an external force or impact.
I would venture to say that a planet could be hit extremely hard by an object and even if that impact slightly adjusted its tilt it would torque back to its gyroscopic point of equilibrium in pretty short order as evidenced by Mercury. I would further surmise that an impacting object's ability to adjust the planets mass distribution (either by dislodging or adding material creating uneven mass) would have more of an effect on tilt than its ability to turn the planet due to the actual impact energy.
On Reddit, I asked this simple question under the astronomy category
What do you suppose causes planet's axis to tilt at various angles?
I received this answer
Axial tilt is caused by collisions during planetary formation.
This is the mindlessly regurgitated mainstream response.
Below is a video demonstrating the mainstream pseudo science I'm contending with. In this video, The Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) is used to explain (rather sloppily) the tilt of the planets in the inner solar system. The planets were fully formed by the time of the LHB as we use moon rocks and impacts to justify the existence of the LHB. Water was supposedly delivered to Earth during the LHB but this is wrong too, read page 75 to understand why.
While this video has some accurate descriptions it also has some horribly wrong suppositions. It accurately describes Mercury's Caloris basin as a massive impact but then completely ignores Mercury's lack of tilt which would have been caused by this impact.
This is further evidence suggesting that planets are gyroscopically and gravitationally adjusted to their natural TIT angle based on their uneven mass distribution and not impacts. This gyroscopic ability to keep the planet at its optimum angle of tilt based on mass distribution prevented this planet from being knocked over by an external force or impact.
I would venture to say that a planet could be hit extremely hard by an object and even if that impact slightly adjusted its tilt it would torque back to its gyroscopic point of equilibrium in pretty short order as evidenced by Mercury. I would further surmise that an impacting object's ability to adjust the planets mass distribution (either by dislodging or adding material creating uneven mass) would have more of an effect on tilt than its ability to turn the planet due to the actual impact energy.
On Reddit, I asked this simple question under the astronomy category
What do you suppose causes planet's axis to tilt at various angles?
I received this answer
Axial tilt is caused by collisions during planetary formation.
This is the mindlessly regurgitated mainstream response.
Below is a video demonstrating the mainstream pseudo science I'm contending with. In this video, The Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) is used to explain (rather sloppily) the tilt of the planets in the inner solar system. The planets were fully formed by the time of the LHB as we use moon rocks and impacts to justify the existence of the LHB. Water was supposedly delivered to Earth during the LHB but this is wrong too, read page 75 to understand why.
While this video has some accurate descriptions it also has some horribly wrong suppositions. It accurately describes Mercury's Caloris basin as a massive impact but then completely ignores Mercury's lack of tilt which would have been caused by this impact.
|
|
If impacts caused axial tilt Mercury should be tilted from the Caloris impact.
Venus being upside down and the same size as Earth is theoretically the result of an impact but there is no evidence that anything impacted Venus and Venus has no moon. If Earth was impacted by an object that created our moon causing the Earth to tilt 23 degrees where's the moon or debris around Venus that caused 177 degree tilt? Hellas basin on Mars is assumed to be an impact basin but on page 70 I explain why its a geological feature not an impact site. |
Our moon's maria (dark blotches) once thought to be impacts are now accepted as having been created by volcanology and molten lava not impacts. I explain in more detail on page 51. Basically just about everything in this video is pseudo science presented as science fact and commonly accepted by the masses.
At the top of this page I quoted a reference from "Ask an Astronomer" where it states that "a moon on an inclined orbit around its parent planet will seek to stabilize around the equator because of tidal bulge, heat and friction" this also implies that the moon will impart the same degree of torque energy to its host planet as it stabilizes. Each works against the other to bring the total mass into a state of gyroscopic tilted balance.
All these layers of gyroscopic torque forces eventually bring a system to a point of stability, as they do, the planet's axis is turned to the optimum angle for equalizing out all these instabilities so that they eventually balance turning the axis to whatever angle is required to meet those needs.
When a moon experiences tidal bulge because of being out of alignment with the equatorial plane of the planet, this becomes, in essence, an uneven distribution of the systems total mass and since they are spinning gyroscopically creating gravitational torque, the two bodies seek out equilibrium which acts to orient the moon to the center of the planet's spin (equator) and adjust the planets tilt to accommodate the moons mass. This is uneven mass spinning gyroscopically producing gravitational Torque Induced Tilt or TIT.
Below is a Saturnian moon called Tethys with a massive impact crater called Odysseus located around 20-30 degrees off its axial pole. In this image Tethys' north pole is oriented at the top. Tethys' north pole only tilts about 1 degree off Saturn's equatorial plane (nearly perfectly perpendicular) while Saturn tilts 26.5 degrees off the ecliptic plane. This is another example (similar to Mercury) of a massive impact that did not change the axial alignment of a planet's or moon's orientation relative to its parent body.
Wiki says
Odysseus is the largest crater on Saturn's moon Tethys. It is 445 km across, more than 2/5 of the moon's diameter, and is one of the largest craters in the Solar System.
At the top of this page I quoted a reference from "Ask an Astronomer" where it states that "a moon on an inclined orbit around its parent planet will seek to stabilize around the equator because of tidal bulge, heat and friction" this also implies that the moon will impart the same degree of torque energy to its host planet as it stabilizes. Each works against the other to bring the total mass into a state of gyroscopic tilted balance.
All these layers of gyroscopic torque forces eventually bring a system to a point of stability, as they do, the planet's axis is turned to the optimum angle for equalizing out all these instabilities so that they eventually balance turning the axis to whatever angle is required to meet those needs.
When a moon experiences tidal bulge because of being out of alignment with the equatorial plane of the planet, this becomes, in essence, an uneven distribution of the systems total mass and since they are spinning gyroscopically creating gravitational torque, the two bodies seek out equilibrium which acts to orient the moon to the center of the planet's spin (equator) and adjust the planets tilt to accommodate the moons mass. This is uneven mass spinning gyroscopically producing gravitational Torque Induced Tilt or TIT.
Below is a Saturnian moon called Tethys with a massive impact crater called Odysseus located around 20-30 degrees off its axial pole. In this image Tethys' north pole is oriented at the top. Tethys' north pole only tilts about 1 degree off Saturn's equatorial plane (nearly perfectly perpendicular) while Saturn tilts 26.5 degrees off the ecliptic plane. This is another example (similar to Mercury) of a massive impact that did not change the axial alignment of a planet's or moon's orientation relative to its parent body.
Wiki says
Odysseus is the largest crater on Saturn's moon Tethys. It is 445 km across, more than 2/5 of the moon's diameter, and is one of the largest craters in the Solar System.
If impacts changed the tilt angle of planets or moons this impact would surely have caused Tethys to turn over but it didn't.
|
This is a heat signature or thermal image of Tethys its often referred to as the Pac-Man moon. 
I would have expected the yellow hotter sections of Tethys to exist near the Odysseus impact but instead it seems to be exactly opposite and as far away from the crater as it can get. |
|
|
This is Iapetus another moon of Saturn with a huge impact around 40 degrees south latitude and an axial tilt of zero (perfectly perpendicular). Impacts cause axial tilt? Ehhh, Naaahhh! |
|
Here's a massive impact on our Moon called Mare Orientale and our Moon axial tilt is only 1.5 degrees off the ecliptic plane. |
|
|
This TIT theory works so well explaining why moons orbit around a planets equator, it made me wonder why our own moon's inclination oscillates between 18 and 29 degrees off Earth's equator. Shouldn't the moon align closer with our planets equator? I read a good explanation to this question somewhere on the internet and now I can't find it so I'll give a quick summation. 
|
The Earth orbits the Sun roughly along the Sun's equator and the moon being of such a large mass and close proximity to the Sun also orbits relative to the Sun's equator rather than the Earth's. The Earth's orbital plane is set by its relation to the Sun's equator but the Earth's TIT (torque induced axial tilt), is more strongly influenced by the Earths uneven mass distribution part of which is the Moon's orbital orientation. |
To make this point a little clearer I took an Earth map cut it horizontally at zero latitude and stacked the southern hemisphere on top and the northern on the bottom so you can see how much more dense land mass is distributed unevenly in the northern hemisphere. Add to this uneven mass distribution the Moon's mass inclined over the north hemisphere and you induce a gyroscopic gravitational torque induced tilt.
|
|
|
Since the moon is 5 degrees off the Earth's orbital plane we don't see solar eclipses every month. The moon's inclination oscillates up and down about 5.2 degrees relative to the Earth's orbital plane around the Sun likely inducing the 2.4 degree 41,000 year wobble in the Earth's axis also known as Milankovitch Cycles. 
Axial wobble of Earth AKA Milankovitch cycle
|
Planets much further away from the Sun have more gravitational influence over their closer moons and so orient them around their equators. Our planet's gravitational mass being so near the Sun does not have as great an influence over the Moon as the Sun.
This is where the TIT's strength and square of the distance effect comes into play. The further objects are from their parent body the weaker the TIT by the square of the distance. |
|
Here's a fun fact.
The Sun's equatorial spin is 7.25 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Why is the Sun's axis tilted 7.25°? Was it caused by an impact???? I don't think so. The orbital mass of all the planets (Jupiter and Saturn in particular) set up an uneven distribution of mass around the Sun. All of them spinning like gyroscopes induce their gravitational torque energies which need to be balanced. The Sun's TIT is 7.25 degrees. |
|
This image should give you a sense of scale. The Sun is enormous compared to all the other planets. If an entire planet the size of Mercury, Mars or Earth were to hit the Sun it wouldn't even notice let alone tilt from the impact. But When you combine the gravitational gyroscopic torque effect of all the planets, all their moons, all the Kuiper Belt Objects, all the Transneptunian Objects, all the asteroids in the main belt, the trojans, centaurs and a possible planet X then you just might be able to tilt the Sun with a TIT that big. |
|
|
Mars has two small satellites called moons but they look more like rocks. This is the inner most moon Phobos it has a radius of about 7 miles. The massive impact crater on Phobos is called Stickney and it has a radius of 2.8 miles. Phobos orbits Mars at a distance of only 3,700 miles compared to Earth's Moon which orbits at about 250,000 miles and has a radius of about 1,080 miles. Stickney takes up a large portion of Phobos and if impacts during their formation cause planetary tilt then Phobos should definitely be turned on its axis. But, is it? Nope! Phobos' axial tilt is zero. |
|
|
Saturn has so many cool moons.
This is Mimas aka the "Death Star" <<<<<<<<< This moon's axial tilt is zero. 
<<<<<<<< This is Proteus a moon of Neptune it has a 210 km radius compared to Mimas at 198 km. This impact on Proteus was enormous compared to its size and yet its axial tilt is zero. Around Saturn and Uranus there are many moons. The closer the moons to the host planet, the more the parent planet tends to control their alignment and axial tilt to the equator. |
|
This is Valhalla impact crater on Jupiter's moon Callisto. This was one large impact and yet Callisto's axial tilt is zero degrees. |
|
Moons farther out from the planet tend to be offset from this equatorial alignment. We also see this effect with the Sun, the planets, the Kuiper belt and the Ort Cloud. The nearer the object the more it aligns with the Suns equator (highest degree of torque force). Further out, however, the objects orbit more randomly or spherically not along a plane.
I've chosen not to clean up my thoughts on this page but instead have left all my bumbling ideas here so you can see how I stumbled into this conclusion.
So what I'm saying is that Pluto's tilt is NOT due to a collision with Charon. If correct, this means Charon is more likely to be a captured Classical Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), that may explain why it is compositionally different and has no tholin.
Looking down from above the Sun, it rotates in a counter clockwise direction as do most of the planets that orbit it. This TIT hypothesis got me thinking about Venus tilted at 177 degrees, Uranus at 98, and Pluto at 120 degrees also known as a retrograde (clockwise) rotation.
I've chosen not to clean up my thoughts on this page but instead have left all my bumbling ideas here so you can see how I stumbled into this conclusion.
So what I'm saying is that Pluto's tilt is NOT due to a collision with Charon. If correct, this means Charon is more likely to be a captured Classical Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), that may explain why it is compositionally different and has no tholin.
Looking down from above the Sun, it rotates in a counter clockwise direction as do most of the planets that orbit it. This TIT hypothesis got me thinking about Venus tilted at 177 degrees, Uranus at 98, and Pluto at 120 degrees also known as a retrograde (clockwise) rotation.
I wondered why they spin so much slower than the other planets and concluded this theory can help explain their slow spin. If this hypothesis is correct, each of these planets likely have at least one inner core separated from the outer core by a fluid or moons acting like outer rings of a Russian doll system.
That means, when the planets are tilted over by more than 90 degrees the outer core spins in a retrograde rotation but since there is only a fluid between the two, the inner core continues to rotate in a prograde rotation.
That means, when the planets are tilted over by more than 90 degrees the outer core spins in a retrograde rotation but since there is only a fluid between the two, the inner core continues to rotate in a prograde rotation.
|
Uneven shapes contained within the inner and outer spheres would also set up irregular waves of pressure and force (torque turbulence).
Depending on the amount and viscosity of the fluid and the mass distribution of each sphere relative to the other, they are fighting each other hydrostatically, gyroscopically, turbulently and gravitationally. Each is trying to slow the other. This appears to be why retrograde planets spin slowly, they are in the process of being completely stopped or having the rotations reversed by the gyroscopic gravitational uneven mass torque force and the fluid's viscosity and hydrostatic influence of the counter rotating inner spheres. |
If a planet were tilted over 180 degrees you would expect the outer sphere to have the greatest braking power or force to slow its spin as the inner core’s equatorial zone would spin more directly in line with and opposite to the outer core's equatorial zone. Whereas, a planet with a tilt of 91 degrees would have the least amount of braking force since its outer sphere's equator would rotate perpendicular to its inner cores equator's direction of rotation (their spins would be at right angles to each other). This means the closer a planet's tilt to 180 degrees the slower it should spin. Is this what we observe?
Venus is tilted to 177 degrees (nearly 180) and its retrograde rotation is 243 days, Pluto at 120 degrees has a spin rate of 6.4 days and Uranus at 98 degrees tilt has a retrograde rotation of 17 hours 14 minutes. Exactly in line with what you would expect if there were two spherical bodies separated by a fluid putting the brakes on each other via gravitational torque.
Obviously there are other factors involved but the rates of slow rotation align with the concept of gravitational torque induced by uneven mass distribution and the angle of tilt as one sphere's spin impacts on the other applying a braking force to each. This suggest Pluto may be differentiated but Charon's near orbit around Pluto can also act as a sphere spinning around a sphere. I will argue in favor of Pluto being differentiated on the next page.
Obviously there are other factors involved but the rates of slow rotation align with the concept of gravitational torque induced by uneven mass distribution and the angle of tilt as one sphere's spin impacts on the other applying a braking force to each. This suggest Pluto may be differentiated but Charon's near orbit around Pluto can also act as a sphere spinning around a sphere. I will argue in favor of Pluto being differentiated on the next page.
While we only have three examples, what we observe is that the closer a planet is tilted towards 180 degrees the slower its retrograde rotation. This interpretation of their retrograde spin could be wrong but it makes sense to me.
With uneven surface distributions in mass, you would expect the icy cold rigid harder outer crust to toque and twist to its natural point of gyroscopic balance while the inner sphere's axial spin would more likely be positioned near zero as the inner sphere should be more evenly rounded and compositionally uniform from both pressure and heat.
The uneven distribution of mass induces pulsating waves of torque energy from one sphere to the other.
With uneven surface distributions in mass, you would expect the icy cold rigid harder outer crust to toque and twist to its natural point of gyroscopic balance while the inner sphere's axial spin would more likely be positioned near zero as the inner sphere should be more evenly rounded and compositionally uniform from both pressure and heat.
The uneven distribution of mass induces pulsating waves of torque energy from one sphere to the other.
Moons are extreme examples of this uneven mass distribution and its spinning gravitational effect on its planet. The same processes are occurring from one planetary sphere to the other with less variations in mass distributions but they exist none the less and they do create pulsating waves of gravitational torque energy as the planet spins.
|
This Torque Induced Tilt is sorta like Lenz's law in electromagnetism. In fact if there is a magnetic core then Lenz's law may play a direct role in this process. If you want to see a cool video showing Lenz's law in effect, watch this video >>>>>> Venus and Uranus due to solar wind interactions have atmospheric magnetic fields but likely don't have magnetic cores. Nobody knows whether Pluto has a magnetic core but probably not so Lenz's law likely doesn't apply at Pluto. |
|
Pluto does produce X Ray radiation and it is open to debate whether or not this indicates Pluto has a magnetosphere. Even if it does it would be from Pluto's atmosphere interacting with the solar wind not from a molten core of metal creating a magnetic field.
Subduction
Here is the concept of subduction on earth.
Uneven subsurface irregularities would create turbulence in the molten rock fluid we call magma. These disruptions in the fluid may create hydrostatic influences that further assist in the braking process when two sphere's are counter rotating. Back to gyroscopic gravitational torque due to uneven mass and spin. |
|
|
MvGulik is a member at Zooniverse who showed me this gravity map of the Earth from the joint NASA-German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). High density areas or denser mass equals stronger gravity. Red areas are of higher gravity and blues have less gravity. There are places on the map that are red and align with high elevations of land mass with high gravity like the Himalayas as well as places of low elevations and low gravity that are blue like the Hudson bay in Canada. |
|
|
But there are also areas that are under the ocean (low elevation) that are red with high gravity. These areas align with fault lines like around New Zealand, Malaysia and Iceland. These areas being below sea level with higher gravitational fields indicate the magma below the earth's fault lines is more dense than the surrounding silicate rock creating stronger gravitational fields. HighRes gravity map of IndoPacific area. |
|
Grace gravity map centered over EuroAfrica Some areas on the planet with high elevations (larger amounts of mass) do display higher levels of gravity as can be seen here with this elevation map combined with high gravity zones. In other words tectonic plate collisions push increasing amounts of rock on top of each other melting rock creating volcanoes spewing large quantities of denser material into one area increasing the gravitational pull at that location. |
|
|
Grace gravity map centered over Americas >>>>>>>>> Bulging red areas represent stronger gravity. Sunken blue areas represent low gravity. 
Topography map of south America demonstrating how elevated land often creates increased gravity. More mass, more gravity.
|
The Geoid 2011 model, based on data from LAGEOS, GRACE, GOCE and surface data. Credit: GFZ
|
|
Venus' North pole is upside down.
Below is an elevation map of Venus. White or pink is the highest elevation with red running a close second while purple followed by blue are lowest elevations. Green/yellow is sorta in the middle. Maxwell Montes is the highest point on Venus with the greatest mass. Venus' north pole is angled downward, compared to Earth it would be pointing toward our south pole. |
Venus Topographic map with north pole facing 177 degrees
Venus doesn't have a moon (no evidence of it having been knocked over) but it has a clear and large uneven distribution of mass at its north pole and Venus practically stands on its head. This below image is oriented so the north pole is at the top but in reality it is pointing south which is why Venus spins backwards. Notice how the north pole (top of this image) has a very large high elevated area which has an increased density of mass relative to the south pole. |
Maxwell Montes is very near to Venus' north pole. This excess mass at the north pole likely caused Venus to experience a torque induced tilt (flip) to 177 degree. 
Venus Topographic map with north pole in center (purple) area above Maxwell Montes
|
I took the above image and flipped it over 177 degrees to give a closer representation of the north pole's true orientation.
With its outer crust rotating in a backwards spin relative to the inner core separated by liquid magma both Venus' internal and external spheres act to slow the spin speed of the other this is likely what caused the inner core to loose its ability to generate a magnetic field. The spinning effect of the inner core magma is what theoretically creates our magnetosphere. With the spin speed of both inner and outer spheres reduced to a crawl as they counter rotate, Venus lost its magnetic field. Without a magnetosphere to protect its atmosphere from the Sun, Venus turned into an inferno.
Magnetic Pole Reversal
|
On Earth our magnetic pole's reverse on average once every 450,000 years. The Sun's magnetic poles reverse once every 11 years. This fact indicates something within our Sun and Planet is flopping, twisting, tilting and turning over while they gyroscopically spin.
It also indicates there are uneven distributions of mass. While you would expect the Sun's magnetic field to exert a significant influence over our planet's magnetic field, the disproportionate time frames of reversal seem to imply that this influence is negligible. |
Earth's magnetic field
|
Once the Earth's magnetic pole reversal process starts, the length of time it takes for the magnetic poles to change can range from 250 to 10,000 years.
Our Sun's magnetic pole reversal
|
This implies the twisting and torquing process is altered or varies over time which also acts to vary our planet's degree and frequency of axial tilt.
I suspect this magnetic flopping phenomenon is related to the inner and outer sphere's rate of rotation along with uneven mass distributions, moon or planetary orbital inclination along with their subsequent tidal bulge and the natural gyroscopic gravitational torque induced by all these variables. |
The Earth's core rotates in the same direction as the Earth's crust but slightly faster, about two thirds of a second faster each day. Over the past 100 years that extra speed has gained the core a quarter-turn on the planet as a whole. On geological time scales this is incredibly fast but the Sun sets these speeds to shame.
The Sun's core spins four times faster than its surface and is slowing from the outside inward. This is likely why the Sun's magnetic field flips every eleven years and Earth's only flips once every 450,000 years similar to what you see in the dancing T handle video below.
The Sun's core spins four times faster than its surface and is slowing from the outside inward. This is likely why the Sun's magnetic field flips every eleven years and Earth's only flips once every 450,000 years similar to what you see in the dancing T handle video below.
If you want to see an AMAZING video of a Solar magnetic flare eruption that lasts for about 3 minutes, watch this video.
(Animation: James Keane/NASA/JHUAPL/SWRI)
|
Update January 1st, 2017
found this cool animation about 6 months after I formulated this idea that helps visualize my thoughts. This animation is supposed to demonstrate how Pluto's outer crust may have wandered into its orientation with Charon as the result of nitrogen ices forming at SP along with a subsurface ocean but instead, I think it does a pretty good job of demonstrating how an imbalance in the distribution of mass will cause a torque induced tilt to the planet, consequently, reorienting its poles. This animation is a complete fabrication based on assumptions not facts, regardless, it's a cool looking animation. |
|
Planets have an orbital axis a spin axis and a tidal axis (above image). Depending on mass distribution and gyroscopic spin the planet twists and turns to balance its three axes something like what you see in this video. On planets with an outer skin or crust separated by a fluid with an inner core, true polar wander occurs. The outer skin can slip and slide to balance its uneven mass so that the rotational forces balance around the poles axis. |
|
|
|
|
Waves
I am amazed by some of the videos on sound waves like this one where sound waves are used to levitate water.
While these are high frequency relatively low power sound waves that can only levitate small objects against Earth's gravity, it visually opens our eyes to some of the possibilities of the power of waves. Planets also produce waves of sound or low frequency sound waves in the electromagnetic medium of space. I know, I know in space there is no sound but there are waves of energy. |
|
|
There's also this video on Helmholtz Resonators which creates circular propulsion using sound.
All of this gyroscopic gravitational spinning, hydrostatic pressure waves and pulsating electromagnetic waves collectively must be the source of torque that creates the tilt of these planets. Another aspect of this phenomenon is that if there is a fluid separating two planetary spheres, there will be a tidal bulge created by any moons in orbit. Just as our moon creates tides on our oceans, moons will likewise create tides within a planet down to their liquid level. |
|
Earlier on I assumed a planetary system would need at least two sphere's to experience this gyroscopic torque effect. That was before I considered how the moons could act as a sphere relative to the planet. A planet like Venus without a moon would need two internal spheres for this torque induced tilt (TIT) force to turn it over to 177 degrees but Pluto with such a massive moon could be gyroscopically tilted by Charon's gravitational torque meaning it doesn't necessarily have to be differentiated to experience the force of the TIT.
But
While I don't believe Pluto or Charon is fully differentiated, I am still going to try to argue in favor of Pluto having a differentiated core on the next page. I do this to scramble my own thinking just to see what develops. Who knows maybe I'll convince myself they are differentiated.
One thing I can say with confidence is that impacts do not cause planets to tilt.
and
I think my TIT hypothesis reasonably explains what causes planetary tilt.
Update February 17th 2018, a year and a half after writing this page I came across this statement in a National Geographic article.
It’s not the only study to assign such a massive role to the Tharsis volcanoes: Recent work even proposes that the volcanoes’ eruptions shifted Mars up to 20 degrees on its axis as the planet got thrown off-balance by the additional surface mass.
Uneven mass distribution does cause planetary tilt, NOT IMPACTS!
Update March 14, 2018
I decided to do a little visual experiment to see what a topography map of Pluto and Charon looked turned 120 degrees to match their actual axial tilt (obliquity).
But
While I don't believe Pluto or Charon is fully differentiated, I am still going to try to argue in favor of Pluto having a differentiated core on the next page. I do this to scramble my own thinking just to see what develops. Who knows maybe I'll convince myself they are differentiated.
One thing I can say with confidence is that impacts do not cause planets to tilt.
and
I think my TIT hypothesis reasonably explains what causes planetary tilt.
Update February 17th 2018, a year and a half after writing this page I came across this statement in a National Geographic article.
It’s not the only study to assign such a massive role to the Tharsis volcanoes: Recent work even proposes that the volcanoes’ eruptions shifted Mars up to 20 degrees on its axis as the planet got thrown off-balance by the additional surface mass.
Uneven mass distribution does cause planetary tilt, NOT IMPACTS!
Update March 14, 2018
I decided to do a little visual experiment to see what a topography map of Pluto and Charon looked turned 120 degrees to match their actual axial tilt (obliquity).
|
|
Pluto's on the left and Charon's on the right.
I outlined some of the higher elevated areas on Charon's northern hemisphere in back lines and outlined a similarly raised zone on its southern hemisphere in red.
I then rotated them both 120 degrees left. This is how they are both oriented in space.
I outlined some of the higher elevated areas on Charon's northern hemisphere in back lines and outlined a similarly raised zone on its southern hemisphere in red.
I then rotated them both 120 degrees left. This is how they are both oriented in space.
|
|
One obvious fact about Pluto stands out like a giant purple neon light. The lightest part of Pluto is facing straight up. Sputnik Planitia (SP) is a 2 to 3 mile deep depression. Far more often than not, depressions are gravitationally weaker than elevations because there tends to be less mass at these locations. This is further evidence that SP is a negative gravity anomaly not a positive gravity anomaly as NASA scientists purport. Charon also seems to have its most elevated zones angled toward the south.
