|
September 30th, 2016
Can I have a moment of silence for Rosetta, she was plunged to her death today Here's some good background music while reading this page Eminence Front - "Its a put on"- by The Who |
|
|
It's been a month since I wrote the previous page and I thought I was done with Pluto but "Just when I thought I was out....."
About two weeks ago journalist Abigail Beall of DailyMail. reported on a paper published at Nature.com by Tanguy Bertrand and Francois Forget titled Observed glacier and volatile distribution on Pluto from atmosphere–topography processes The authors and their model suggest Sputnik Planitia's (SP) nitrogen glacier ices are created by atmospheric conditions not as the result of subsurface upwelling fluids rising from below. |
|
When I first read the paper, I was fascinated by the concept of seasonal atmospheric conditions concentrating the Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide and Methane (N2, CO, CH4) gasses onto Sputnik Planitia's 4Km (2 mile) deep basin with its subsequently increased pressures, in turn, concentrating and squeezing the gasses into glacial fluids. This seems like a reasonable and tantalizing concept especially when they compared it to the impact basin on Mars called Hellas Planitia.
|
Directly below is the image which is used in the paper demonstrating how frost accumulates in the Hellas basin on Mars. Hellas is an impact site that seasonally accumulates atmospheric gasses in the form of a layer of frost. In this image, Hellas is the white area lower center, the south pole has been cut off this image. This frost occurs because Hellas is a 7Km deep basin where there is an increase of atmospheric pressure. |
This is what Hellas looks like when there are no frosty gasses. For at least half a Mars season Hellas is an empty-ish crater or basin. This observed phenomenon of frost appearing and disappearing seasonally at Hellas, I believe, is the premise upon which the paper's concept for SP was built. |
|
|
|
<<<<<<<<<< A more detailed closeup view of the Northwest quadrant of Hellas from NASA without the frost. According to NASA the ground is rich with ice. Craters from impacts can be seen suggesting this is an old surface. <<<<<<<<<< |
The paper makes this statement.
"The characteristics of Sputnik Planum are thus explained by its latitude and depth rather than by a connection with putative (supposed) N2 reservoirs in the deep interior."
The journalist, Abigail from DailyMail, references the above idea in the paper with a similar statement.
"The model showed the glacier at the heart of Pluto was not formed by an internal reservoir of nitrogen, as previous studies have suggested."
"As previous studies have suggested"? Don't scientist actually look at the terrain in order to understand what is taking place? You don't need a study to understand how wrong this statement is all you need are eyes that can see.
Those comment's are troubling to me not only because they are wrong but also because they're surrounded by comments like this from Abigail.
"Now a new model has used computer simulations to change our understanding of how the glacier at the heart of the dwarf planet formed."
Here again we have a journalist regurgitating what a paper or model is claiming. Instead of exercising any degree of critical thinking there's simply a parroting of the papers model (I suppose that's journalism, perhaps we should call it regurgitism). The author's of the paper take a concept, create a model, sell the concept as "supported by computer simulations", then a journalist (regurgitist) reports on the computer simulated model and now it's considered a forgone conclusion. That which "previous studies have suggested." has been overturned by a computer's modeled concept but where's the content that supports the concept? Don't tell me let me guess, "Its in the computer's model".
The above statements are born more out of a concept rather than actual content.
Below I will show you content more than concept.
I will start by demonstrating how wrong it is to say "the heart (Tombaugh Regio) of Pluto was not formed by an internal reservoir of nitrogen"
"The characteristics of Sputnik Planum are thus explained by its latitude and depth rather than by a connection with putative (supposed) N2 reservoirs in the deep interior."
The journalist, Abigail from DailyMail, references the above idea in the paper with a similar statement.
"The model showed the glacier at the heart of Pluto was not formed by an internal reservoir of nitrogen, as previous studies have suggested."
"As previous studies have suggested"? Don't scientist actually look at the terrain in order to understand what is taking place? You don't need a study to understand how wrong this statement is all you need are eyes that can see.
Those comment's are troubling to me not only because they are wrong but also because they're surrounded by comments like this from Abigail.
"Now a new model has used computer simulations to change our understanding of how the glacier at the heart of the dwarf planet formed."
Here again we have a journalist regurgitating what a paper or model is claiming. Instead of exercising any degree of critical thinking there's simply a parroting of the papers model (I suppose that's journalism, perhaps we should call it regurgitism). The author's of the paper take a concept, create a model, sell the concept as "supported by computer simulations", then a journalist (regurgitist) reports on the computer simulated model and now it's considered a forgone conclusion. That which "previous studies have suggested." has been overturned by a computer's modeled concept but where's the content that supports the concept? Don't tell me let me guess, "Its in the computer's model".
The above statements are born more out of a concept rather than actual content.
Below I will show you content more than concept.
I will start by demonstrating how wrong it is to say "the heart (Tombaugh Regio) of Pluto was not formed by an internal reservoir of nitrogen"
The content of the below image shows fluids pouring onto the land through fissures (aka cryovolcanoes) similar to magma spilling out of fissures or volcanoes on Earth. The yellow arrows point to holes which are surrounded by elevated mounds which have fluids running out (green arrows) creating tributaries, rivers and lakes of fluid. The evidence doesn't get more clear than this.
Notice any similarities between the above and below images?
Below is the same image as above from a different perspective.
The content of the below image shows a bubbling caldron of fluid along the edge where SP and the land ice contact. The bubbling roiling fluid is churning up the surface breaking away fragments of land ice, pushing them away from the land in turn creating floating icebergs. The blue arrow section below is an elevated island area surrounded by the boiling brew soon to be broken away and migrated out and into SP like so many previous land ice blocks have experienced.
The content of the below image shows fluids upwelling out of holes in the land ice.
|
The content of this image shows a series of volcanoes lined along the western edge of Sputnik Planitia created by subsurface pressures pushing material up from below. |
|
|
In this image you can see several indicators of subsurface pressures pushing the terrain upwards.
There are stretch mark fractures running horizontally outlining the top and bottom of a bulging land mass. The central area is elevated at the middle and slopping down around the edges as can be seen by the methane snow which collects on elevated surfaces, looking much like conditions at Yellowstone National Park's super volcano. There is a ridge line with cryovolcanoes following a vertical raised ridge line. At the bottom right you can see fluid bubbling up along the western edge of SP breaking fragments off the land ice and floating them down towards Norgay Monts. |
One basic premise and statement of the paper is that there are no upwelling of fluids rather all the ices contained in SP are from atmospheric temperature variances during seasonal changes and from increased pressures at the lower elevation of the basin that is called Sputnik Planitia.
The content of the above images tell a completely different story from the concept of this model.
Yet I am supposed to believe a computer simulated model based on a concept rather than obvious content.
I'm stating emphatically, Pluto does have subsurface upwelling fluids and on this point, the paper is wrong.
My statement doesn't come from a study it comes from obvious observational evidence (content).
That doesn't mean there aren't atmospheric conditions aiding in the process of laying down gasses at SP on a seasonal basis, this aspect of the paper probably has some significant value and accuracy.
I don't understand why it seems necessary for the authors of this concept to claim only one or the other condition could exist. Seems to me both could contribute to the N2 ice in SP. I suspect it goes back to the Hellas basin on Mars. The frost in Hellas basin comes and goes seasonally, it evaporates away completely then reappears. I suspect Tanguy Bertrand observed this effect at Hellas and had what he considered to be an AHAH!!! moment, I have a wonderful concept! let me build a computer simulated model.
Tanguy Bertrand lead author of the paper, made the following comment to MailOnline.
The model also predicts that most of the seasonal frosts should disappear in the next decade.
‘Observing Pluto in the next years will validate or challenge our model.’
I strongly suspect their model will be challenged in the next 10 years.
Here's why.
On Mars seasonally created frost is generated during winter months of the hemisphere in question not summer months. The frost on Mars dissipates during the seasonal summer of Hellas' hemisphere and returns in the winter.
On Sept 5th, 1989 Pluto was at its closest point to the Sun and was in its summer time. SP would have received as much Sun as possible at that point. It is now heading out of summer and beginning its fall. It will take another hundred years before it enters winter. The North pole is heading into it's summer season.
The below drawing created by Emily Lakdawalla shows how the equator of Pluto (SP) was exposed to direct overhead Sunlight at perihelion (its closest point) which occurred 1989-1990 (26 years ago). This would have been the hottest point for SP. This is when all the fluid or frosty ices should have evaporated away. As Pluto has migrated away from perihelion, the equator will receive less sunlight and will be more inclined to frost over. Since we see a vast quantity of fluid nitrogen at SP only 26 years after it's hottest point it seems reasonable to expect more rather than less frosty ices to condense out of the atmosphere adding to what's already in SP.
In other words, SP should be mostly dry and empty right now if all it's N2 came solely from atmospheric gasses.
Or perhaps I truly don't understand what the paper is indicating or I don't understand these seasonal cycles on Pluto. It does appear as though the north pole snow will evaporate soon as it is entering its summer time but SP isn't going anywhere.
The content of the above images tell a completely different story from the concept of this model.
Yet I am supposed to believe a computer simulated model based on a concept rather than obvious content.
I'm stating emphatically, Pluto does have subsurface upwelling fluids and on this point, the paper is wrong.
My statement doesn't come from a study it comes from obvious observational evidence (content).
That doesn't mean there aren't atmospheric conditions aiding in the process of laying down gasses at SP on a seasonal basis, this aspect of the paper probably has some significant value and accuracy.
I don't understand why it seems necessary for the authors of this concept to claim only one or the other condition could exist. Seems to me both could contribute to the N2 ice in SP. I suspect it goes back to the Hellas basin on Mars. The frost in Hellas basin comes and goes seasonally, it evaporates away completely then reappears. I suspect Tanguy Bertrand observed this effect at Hellas and had what he considered to be an AHAH!!! moment, I have a wonderful concept! let me build a computer simulated model.
Tanguy Bertrand lead author of the paper, made the following comment to MailOnline.
The model also predicts that most of the seasonal frosts should disappear in the next decade.
‘Observing Pluto in the next years will validate or challenge our model.’
I strongly suspect their model will be challenged in the next 10 years.
Here's why.
On Mars seasonally created frost is generated during winter months of the hemisphere in question not summer months. The frost on Mars dissipates during the seasonal summer of Hellas' hemisphere and returns in the winter.
On Sept 5th, 1989 Pluto was at its closest point to the Sun and was in its summer time. SP would have received as much Sun as possible at that point. It is now heading out of summer and beginning its fall. It will take another hundred years before it enters winter. The North pole is heading into it's summer season.
The below drawing created by Emily Lakdawalla shows how the equator of Pluto (SP) was exposed to direct overhead Sunlight at perihelion (its closest point) which occurred 1989-1990 (26 years ago). This would have been the hottest point for SP. This is when all the fluid or frosty ices should have evaporated away. As Pluto has migrated away from perihelion, the equator will receive less sunlight and will be more inclined to frost over. Since we see a vast quantity of fluid nitrogen at SP only 26 years after it's hottest point it seems reasonable to expect more rather than less frosty ices to condense out of the atmosphere adding to what's already in SP.
In other words, SP should be mostly dry and empty right now if all it's N2 came solely from atmospheric gasses.
Or perhaps I truly don't understand what the paper is indicating or I don't understand these seasonal cycles on Pluto. It does appear as though the north pole snow will evaporate soon as it is entering its summer time but SP isn't going anywhere.
Emily Lakdawalla after Candy Hansen
In addition to the above information, the below diagram shows how the equatorial zone is always exposed to sunlight during its seasonal migration around the Sun. Currently the southern most area of Pluto is continuously in shadow. From latitude 13N to 13S there is a band that seasonally always gets some sunlight. With only atmospheric gas contributions, one might think this zone should be perpetually frost free like Cthulhu Regio yet we also see areas in this zone containing the greatest quantities of N2 fluid located in the "NASA uplands" (my wetlands) not just in the SP basin.
I'm a Pluto/Charon stalker
|
A hunter when stalking his prey, reads the terrain, pays close attention to the environment, studies details, camouflages his scent, external features and colors, looks for disturbed leaves or a turned over piece of moss on a fallen tree.
A hunter quietly moves through the terrain listening to the birds and other animals, understands the direction of the wind, knows the habits of his prey, looks for disturbances like broken twigs, hair or fur caught on briars. He studies imprints to determine how long ago the animal passed by, asking what was its gate, size, weight, movement patterns and direction of travel. Once he locates the prey he then utilizes his weapon to achieve his objective (the kill). A hunter carefully studies and understands the content of his environment in order to succeed at his objective. It seems, many scientist would approach a hunting scenario by picking up the gun and studying the rifling of the barrel, its bore, the caliber and aerodynamic shape of the bullet the number of grains of gunpowder within the casing, the burn rate of the powder understanding the potential for released kinetic energy, they apply formulas related to gravity and it's effect on the bullet as it travels from point to point. |
|
|
They would calculate the trajectory of the projectile accounting for mass, gravity, wind, velocity. etc.. Once they fully understand the concept of how the gun and bullet work together, they fire the weapon knowing the bullet will follow all the rules of physics and strike their objective. |
|
They run all the numbers and calculations expecting this must be the best way to kill an animal with a weapon. While fully understanding the math behind the use of the weapon they miss the obvious fact you need to get within range of an animal in order to succeed at hitting it.
It appears as though some scientist would be content with understanding the concept of firing a weapon and this then becomes their objective.
There certainly is a place for this kind of detailed knowledge and it can become interesting enough to be an objective within itself but if the desire is to understand Pluto/Charon's environment as a whole then the parts must work together. You can't just look at singular individual concepts about subsurface oceans of water, frost from the atmosphere, moons as having accreted from grains of dust, 4 billion year time frames or collision models and treat them as though they aren't interconnected. These individual parts must come together to form a whole.
Step back look at the total picture and if individual concepts disagree with the content then let it go.
This paper is truly fascinating and interesting I simply don't understand why they feel the need to claim there are no up-welling fluids contributing to the N2, CO and CH4 gasses in SP.
It appears as though some scientist would be content with understanding the concept of firing a weapon and this then becomes their objective.
There certainly is a place for this kind of detailed knowledge and it can become interesting enough to be an objective within itself but if the desire is to understand Pluto/Charon's environment as a whole then the parts must work together. You can't just look at singular individual concepts about subsurface oceans of water, frost from the atmosphere, moons as having accreted from grains of dust, 4 billion year time frames or collision models and treat them as though they aren't interconnected. These individual parts must come together to form a whole.
Step back look at the total picture and if individual concepts disagree with the content then let it go.
This paper is truly fascinating and interesting I simply don't understand why they feel the need to claim there are no up-welling fluids contributing to the N2, CO and CH4 gasses in SP.
Cold Trapping
The paper indicates the N2 ice that collects on SP would act as a cold trap for the CO and CH4 gasses. This got me thinking about the north pole of Charon and the suggested cold trap theory for the red material at Mordor.
The NASA scientific theory which is used to explain the presence of red tholins on Charon's north pole goes like this.
Atmospheric gasses released from Pluto have been captured by Charon's gravity and since it's north pole gets really cold, this tends to focus the tholin accumulation at this location as the result of cold trapping.
The NASA scientific theory which is used to explain the presence of red tholins on Charon's north pole goes like this.
Atmospheric gasses released from Pluto have been captured by Charon's gravity and since it's north pole gets really cold, this tends to focus the tholin accumulation at this location as the result of cold trapping.
|
If this cold trapping theory were correct wouldn't other gasses also accumulate on Charon's north pole forming frost similar to what this paper is suggesting has happened at SP or similar to what we see at Hellas basin on Mars? After all, Mordor is a depression like Hellas and SP.
I continue to see Mordor as an impact site created by an object nearly identical to 1994-JR1. The lack of frost from Pluto's atmospheric gasses is one additional point that infers the tholin on Charon's north pole did not come from Pluto else frost from these other gasses would exist as well. If the tholin at Mordor was the result of cold trapped gasses from Pluto, wouldn't there also be signs of frosty N2, CO and/or CH4? Why would cold trapping collect tholin at Mordor but not frosty Nitrogen? |
|
I hate to have to point out one obvious fact about climates. Ocean's create vapor from the Sun's heat energy which then become clouds which create rain and snow which then migrate back to the ocean. Atmosphere's come from oceans, atmospheres don't create oceans. Oceans create atmospheres. Pluto's ocean of nitrogen is creating the atmosphere not the other way around. This is my point about scientist. Most are mathematical geniuses but they miss the obvious basic concepts. It's so easy to get caught up in the details of their concepts that the big picture is completely lost.
I need to add a disclaimer here.
I've said it before but I really need to emphasize a point, I'm not a scientist, which is obvious to any scientist.
After going back through and reading some of my earlier pages, I realize how many mistakes I've made.
Much of the material I've read in these scientific papers is over my head. I have to look up many of the terms just to be able to understand some of the material. When I make an emphatic statement like I have done on this page, it's based on observational evidence. It is entirely possible and even probable, I have missed critical information in the papers due to ignorance.
I need to add a disclaimer here.
I've said it before but I really need to emphasize a point, I'm not a scientist, which is obvious to any scientist.
After going back through and reading some of my earlier pages, I realize how many mistakes I've made.
Much of the material I've read in these scientific papers is over my head. I have to look up many of the terms just to be able to understand some of the material. When I make an emphatic statement like I have done on this page, it's based on observational evidence. It is entirely possible and even probable, I have missed critical information in the papers due to ignorance.
