January 18th, 2017

Foundations

The idea of tidal flexing having occurred at some point between Pluto and Charon is about as concrete and solid a concept you will get in our universe. I guesstimate there is a 99.9999% chance Pluto and Charon entered into an elongated off center orbit around each other at some point before they became tidally locked. I raned the numbers, checked the math, I'm a fart smeller an donte mayk misteaks so I no the 99.99999% value is acurit. 

I am going to build up from this one solid foundational fact.
At some point, Pluto/Charon shared an eccentric elliptical orbit creating tidal flex.

You can trust this foundation, whether or not I place shaky conceptual walls or an arguably suspicious roof is another point that can be debated but the foundation is more solid than granite it's as irrefutable as anything gets.

NASA's foundation is built on a theory that Pluto/Charon collided 4 billion years ago. Even if Pluto and Charon collided, they experienced an off centered elongated orbital path with each other at some point creating tidal stretching. Every single moon in our solar system captured by another larger body experienced tidal stretching at some point. Before I build my house on this solid foundation, lets first take a look at NASA's precarious foundation.

NASA's Foundation

What is the foundation upon which NASA has built their Pluto/Charon theories?
I can sum it up in one word,

                                                  models.

The impact of Charon and Pluto is the basis for the separation of the ice from rock in Pluto creating the differentiated core. Without the impact energy the rocky material would have stayed suspended in rock ice just like we see at Callisto page 49. 

Ten years before we got to Pluto, NASA scientists decided Pluto and Charon collided and this became their fundamental foundational fact upon which all their subsequent theories would stand.

Robin Canup was able to create a variation on the large body Earth/Moon collision model, however, new studies show the Moon formed from multiple smaller sized impacts not one big impact. Quote from above study
It is difficult to reconcile giant-impact models with the compositional similarity of the Earth and Moon without violating angular momentum constraints...

When other scientists couldn't successfully create a model of Pluto/Charon colliding and surviving as two separate masses Robin was asked to provide her expertise.

In Robin's model, the two bodies that collided had to be uniform, not differentiated, prior to collision else the model didn't work. In the model where the collision worked, Charon hit Pluto with a slow glancing blow which kept Charon's temperature at 30 K. Only about 5% of Pluto was heated to between 150-300 K and about 35% was heated to between 85-150 K.

This increased temperature then was supposed to have created the differentiated state of Pluto but would have left Charon uniform.

Fig. 1. Time series of a potential Pluto-Charon–forming impact yielding a planet-disk system (run 70 in table S1 with N 0 120,000 particles). Results are shown looking down onto the plane of the impact at times t - 1.3, 3.2, 7.5, 11.8, 14.5, and 24.6 hours; units shown are distance in 103 km. Color indicates material type (blue, water ice; orange, dunite; red, iron), with all of the particles in the 3D simulation overplotted in order of increasing density. The impacting objects are identical—both are predifferentiated into 40% ice mantles and 60% rock cores by mass with initial surface temperatures set to 150 K, increasing with depth (7) to a central temperature ,800 K. After an initially oblique impact in the counterclockwise sense (A), the two objects separate (B and C) before recolliding. After the second collision, the denser cores migrate toward the center, as a bar-type mode (36) forms in the rapidly rotating merged objects (D). From each end of the bar emanate spiral structures (D and E), whose self-gravity acts to transport angular momentum from inner to outer portions. The arms wrap up on themselves and finally disperse to yield a ring (36) of material (whose differential motion would on a longer time scale produce a disk), together with the central planet (F).

Based on this foundational concept of an impact, the differentiated Pluto core scenario was built. 

This is Robin's impact model of two bodies with differentiated cores prior to collision. I suspect this is where the other scientist's models failed.  Color indicates material type (blue = water ice; orange = dunite (90% Olivine rock); red = iron)),

With solid core's these two bodies merge into one and leave a ring of debris. Robin explains this is why you can't use a model based on two planets with differentiated cores. The planets must be uniform prior to impact.

Conclusion - for the collision model to work Pluto and Charon had to be uniform at the time of impact or the model simply doesn't work.

According to this paper titled
"Ocean worlds in the outer solar system"
By F. Nimmo and R. T. Pappalardo at  AGU Pub.
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, (and I include Pluto at 875km) ancient heat cannot be stored in this manner.
End Quote

Francis Nimmo is saying that for planets with a core radius smaller than 1000 km, ancient radioactive core heat is not possible and for core radius' greater than 1000 km it is only potentially possible.

In 1997 (20 years ago) Bill McKinnon wrote a paper where he said the following. Pluto’s ice/rock+ice ratio is supposed to be about 0.65 (McKinnon et al., 1997) and for a differentiated Pluto the silicate core would be roughly 40% of the volume.

If Pluto were fully differentiated, the largest it's core's radius can possibly be is 875km. The core radius is likely smaller than 875 km since Pluto wasn't fully heated by the theoretical impact.

Robin's successful model of Pluto/Charon colliding demonstrates there wasn't enough heat generated in the collision to fully differentiate Pluto's core.

This is Robin's collision model of two bodies that have uniform cores prior to impact. Solid blue shows temperatures between 0 and 50K and subsequently indicates any existing rock is suspended in rock hard ice.

The larger body represents Pluto, Robin points out how you can see Charon does not get heated above 30 K remaining blue while a small portion of Pluto does get warm. An even smaller portion heats to 200K while most of the heated material is in the yellow green temperature range which is between 60 and 150K.

The other thing noted here is that much less than half of Pluto was heated to higher temperatures in this model perhaps 30% to 40% her paper does not specify the portion that heats but the image shows a small yellow green section. This means this collision model supports a partially differentiated core not a fully differentiated core. 60% to 70% of Pluto remains completely unheated in this collision model.

A fully differentiated core's radius would only be 875km. Being generous by saying this partially differentiated core is 40% of a full core means the partial core's radius would at best be 350km. 

This is far far too small a core to still be hot after 4 billion years. Consider this, Pluto is less than 1 percent the mass of the earth 0.22% and only 17.7% the mass of our moon.

Being generous by saying this partially differentiated core is 40% of a full 40% radius volume core means the partial core's radius would at best be 350km.

Quote from Robin's collision model paper
In moon-producing impacts, the satellite material experienced little heating (Temp = 30 K), because it had for the most part avoided direct impact with the planet, whereas the target was heated more substantially (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Time series of a potential Pluto-Charon–forming impact  yielding a planet-moon system (run 20 in Table 1 with N 0 20,000 particles). Results are shown at times t = 0, 0.9, 3.2, 5.9, 7.5, 11.2, and 27.5 hours; distances are shown in units of 103 km and color scales with the change in temperature in kelvin. The impacting objects have uniform serpentine compositions. After an initially very oblique impact with a 73- impact angle (A), the two objects separate (B and C) and during this period the smaller impactor receives a net torque from the distorted figure of the target. After a second, even more grazing encounter (D), an additional portion of the impactor is accreted onto the planet, while the rest self-contracts into an intact moon containing 12% of the central planet’s mass that is again torqued by the ellipsoidal figure of the target (D and E) onto a stable orbit with a semimajor axis of 6.5 Rp and an eccentricity of e 0 0.5. The final moon in (F) is described by 2232 SPH particles.

Robin Canup paper quote
A second result is that oblique collisions with vimp > 1.3vesc (impact velocities greater than or equal to 1.3 times the escape velocity) or (v > 0.9 km/s for Mt ~ MPC) (impact velocities greater than or equal to 0.9 km/s for a system with a total mass approximately equal to the combined mass of Pluto and Charon) do not produce massive disks or satellites orbiting the primary, and this was true for all of the simulations.

Discussion.
This work identifies a range of impacts capable of producing Pluto-Charon type systems.
The impacts are low-velocity (v < 0.9 km/s) oblique collisions by an impactor containing 30 to 50% of the Pluto-Charon system’s mass

Pluto's escape velocity (gravitational pulling speed) is 1.212 km/s. In other words, the slowest an object can possibly impact the surface of Pluto is 1.212 km/s but all Canup's impact scenarios fail at velocities above 0.9 km/s.

The below chart was created by Sarah Greenstreet. In it you can see that the highest average percent of (3:2 resonant black line) objects colliding with Pluto  is 9.3% impacting at 1.7 km/s. Follow that black line to the left down to the 1.2 km/s tick mark and impacts drop to zero because nothing can impact Pluto slower than this as its gravitational pull accelerates objects to at least this velocity.

Robin's model over time has been corrupted  into these two concepts expressed on
<<<<<<  Wikipedia
and
             Wikimedia >>>>>>>
These are misrepresentations of Robin's model but are now accepted as the Pluto/Charon collision theory. This is science by cartoons and models.

In Canup's model, Charon remains mostly in tact and unheated and it delivers a slow 73° glancing blow. This means that since Charon is the same material now as it would have been during this theoretical impact, Charon and Pluto were compositionally different from each other prior to the supposed impact. It's not just Wikipedia that's misregurgitating Robin's collision model NASA scientists from the New Horizons' team are doing it too.

Here's a quote from a New Horizons team paper called "The Small Satellites of Pluto as Observed by New Horizons"
We further note that if the Pluto-Charon binary was produced by a giant collision in which both precursor bodies were at least partially differentiated (possessing icy surface layers), any small moons formed in the resulting debris disk are predicted to be rich in water ice.

Robin's model only works for bodies that were initially uniform not partially differentiated and Charon didn't heat up or differentiate after the supposed impact but scientists writing approved papers on the New Horizons team along with wikipedia are all positing information not supported by the initial impact theory.

Charon and Pluto were two distinctly different objects. This remains true whether they impacted or not because if it remains true under an impact scenario then it certainly is true for a non impact scenario. In other words, this collision scenario doesn't relate to that of our Moon's collision with Earth as our Moon is supposed to be the crustal material from Earth that was turned molten and ejected into space to later coalesce. This theoretical impact scenario is one of Charon delivering a slight and slow glancing blow on Pluto remaining mostly as it was prior to the impact cold, uniform and compositionally different.

Since an errant fully differentiated core idea was firmly entrenched for 10 years in everyone's mind, an ocean of water model was the natural next step and was subsequently created, based on the ocean of water idea the existence of ammonia antifreeze became necessary, likewise, out of the ocean theory, a positive gravity anomaly developed to explain Sputnik Planitia's alignment with Charon.

Based on the positive gravity anomaly a thin crust under SP came into existence, based on the thin crust concept we developed an impact theory at SP now based on an ocean there is potential alien life swimming around.

From all this speculation and without any evidence of an impact at SP, we now have cartoon drawings with fabricated fictional ejecta blankets. These images were drawn by James Keane and falsely represent an ejecta blanket around SP but accurately represents what Bill McKinnon wants the world to believe.

Based on the positive gravity anomaly model at SP we now have true polar wonder which was caused by a theoretical impact at 60 degrees north of its current location.

I do not exaggerate the point, when I say, all of these ideas come from models built on models, built on models, built on models, built on models.

Now we see cartoon drawings presented as science fabricating a concept of an "ejecta blanket" as evidence to support these model based theories.

Bill McKinnon seems to still be selling SP as an impact site and as a result James Keane is drawing images of nonexistent ejecta.

I emailed and tweeted James Keane to explain that Bill McKinnon agreed there is no evidence of an ejecta blanket (video link) (Skip to 1hr 56min mark in video). Problem is Bill continues to present SP as an impact site with ejecta even after he admitted there is none.

The further away from original observation we travel the wilder our concepts become such that we are now relying on cartoons for falsely presented facts and we are speculating about life forms in an imaginary ocean.

This is a really cool artists' impression standing on Pluto along the north of Sputnik Planitia looking south.

This artist impression of SP is inspiring and looks amazing. Nice job John Kaufmann.

I love how John represents Charon and the small size of the sun with troughs in SP, red tholin covered ice blocks, floating icebergs, towering ice block cliff faces and a misty fog it all matches what exists there.

Amazing realism (OK Charon's not to scale and isn't visible from SP but), can't say enough nice stuff about this image, love it. John Kaufmann is an artist not a scientist yet he more accurately portrays Pluto than some scientists. John Kaufmann is simply trying to present information in an inspiring manner and inspiring it is, you should visit his site.

What a shame it is when a planetary scientists falsifies information while an artist seeks to honestly portray it. I'm not implying artist are dishonest, I'm implying scientists should strive to be above reproach with their inference to "facts" and theories (nearly all do) or at the very least they should not present falsehoods in order to manipulate or influence popular opinion.

How did we get to this point where falsified cartoons are now sitting as the basis of scientific explanation.

When a carpenter has to cut many pieces of wood to the same length they will often cut one piece to the exact size then use it as a template to measure all the other pieces against, this way they are never more than one erroneous cut away from the original measurement.

In other words, they don't cut the first piece from the template then cut the second from the first, then the third from the second and the fourth from the third because to do this gets you exponentially further and further away from the original measurement, in turn increasing your cut error potential. 

When anyone builds model, on model, on model an exponential deviation from the core concept takes place. If the core concept is weak all subsequent building block ideas work to destabilize the entire concept.

“Scientists today think deeply rather than clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Todays scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander thru equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no basis in reality.” – Nikola Tesla

To see how this works, lets begin with the first model. 

• Could Pluto and Charon have collided in the past?

Yes its possible.  -----   (new evidence says no page 61)
Did they? Nobody knows.

It took some significant effort to coax this Pluto/Charon collision model into existence. Just because we can coax a model into existence doesn't make it a correct concept, so let's explore it from a probability point. 

• What's the probability of them having collided?

Based on all the other examples in our solar system, 100 percent of all moons are captured or accreted objects including our own.

We now have evidence that our own moon formed from multiple smaller impacts not one Mars or larger sized impact.

This places the Pluto/Charon collision model's probability of being correct extremely low. It certainly is not the norm and in fact it is a very unlikely scenario since there are no other examples of it occurring in our solar system.

The Theia Mars sized impact with Earth along with Robin Canup's even larger body impact model are now known to violate angular momentum constraints. They violate the laws of reality. In other words, our moon formed out of multiple smaller impacts not one giant impact. Page 79 explains in more detail.

The overwhelming evidence is that when objects collide they merge into one, otherwise they orbit about each other as moons. Here are a few examples of what happens 99% of the time when objects collide.
The larger object acquires more mass becoming pockmarked with craters.

Mars has two rocks called moons orbiting it and they were captured by gravity or knocked into orbit via a collision.  You'd think an object that left behind an impact footprint as large as this one on Callisto at Valhalla would have left behind enough space debris to create an orbiting moon. Yet no moon. It's as if this one impacted directly and got swallowed as it was only going fast enough to be absorbed but not spit out the back side.

Currently there are 175 known moons orbiting the gas giants all of these were captured or accreted in situ by gravity.

I saved my favorite for last, this is Comet 67p which is two separate objects that came together to form one. These two distinct objects orbited each other until they merged gently enough to maintain their individual strata. Their strata align at different angles meaning they formed differently then joined with a gentle kiss. All know solar system bodies, are gravitationally captured into mutual orbits or merge to become one larger object or accrete from smaller debris.

While I'm on comet 67p, this image cracks me up.
In this image of 67p, if you look at it closely you can see Pluto (the dog) looking at you.
Take a minute, you should see Pluto he's looking right at you.

What actual observational suggestive evidence do we have to support either side of this Pluto/Charon collision concept?
Bodies like Pluto and Charon being so close in size tidally lock to each other more quickly than bodies with larger variances in size. In shared body scenarios with greater variances like our Moon to Earth relationship, the smaller body will lock sooner than the larger body while the larger bodies spin speed slows generating heat. If Pluto and Charon collided 4 billion years ago creating the four small moons, why haven't these relatively tiny moons tidally locked to the Pluto/Charon barycenter? This is suggestive evidence the small moons that are supposed to come from the collision are not 4 billion years old as NASA indicates.

The small moon's albedos are also too bright to be 4 byr.
Cosmic radiation would make these moons really dark after 4 byr of cooking. Other 3:2 resonant Plutinos in the area have much much darker albedos similar to charcoal while Pluto's small moons have albedos closer to pure ice.

Nix and Hydra's albedos vary enough to suggest they are different objects not accreted from the same material. Accreted material would be more uniform in brightness across all the moons and would be much darker.

Circular orbits are supposed to be an indication the orbiting body has been around for a long time but that rule only applies for captured objects not ejected objects.

Pluto's four small satellites are in circular obits around the Pluto/Charon barycenter this further suggest to me they are recently ejected objects also remember their polar spin axes are extremely erratic and have not settled.

The poles of moons tend to align with the the pole of the parent planet. Smaller moons align their poles faster so why are Pluto/Charon's poles aligned with each other but the small moons aren't if they are the same old age?

I suggested previously that Hydra is a chunk of Charon and Nix is from Pluto. Hydra (furthest out) came from Charon as their albedo's are close to each other and I suggested Nix came from Pluto (second closest orbit) as their albedo's are also close plus Nix has a red tholin impact.

On May 6, 2016 NASA said;
The Hydra spectrum is similar to that of Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, which is also dominated by crystalline water ice... Hydra’s deep water bands and high reflectance imply relatively little contamination by darker material that has accumulated on Charon's surface over the past 4 billion years.

Both Nix and Hydra are brighter than but similar to their respective parents. This would naturally occur to fragments recently ejected from the larger planets as the surface ices of Pluto/Charon have been cooked by radiation for a longer time but broken off chunks would expose the uncooked parts. Since these fragments from Pluto/Charon are young they are brighter than their parent planet.

This suggest they came from Pluto/Charon but are not 4 byr else they would have been cooked by cosmic radiation and covered in dust like other Plutinos. If the small moons are from a 4 byr impact and accreted over that time frame their surfaces would be darkened to match Pluto/Charon, their poles would align and their spins would have settled.

I merged a few images together to help make my point.

Nix has a red tholin impact zit on it's forehead suggesting this moon was impacted by an object from Pluto's surface that was covered in tholin.

The only way I can think to explain this zit is to look at the one place where we see red tholin (Pluto) and deduce a small object came from Pluto got launched into orbit and collided with Nix.

This object had to get launched into orbit AFTER Pluto developed tholin on its surface which in and of itself would have taken a long time. Pluto would have had to develop into a large body with N2 & CH4, create an atmosphere, convert that atmosphere into a tholin sludge then have a piece knocked off, orbit at the same elevation as Nix then finally hit Nix.

All these factors (albedo, spin, zit, pole alignment) suggest these moons did not come from a Pluto/Charon impact 4 byr but rather much more recently.

Impacts on Hydra and Nix have been used to suggest they are 4 billion years old and this then "proves" (according to Kelsi Singer) Charon collided with Pluto.

NASA used 3 impacts on Hydra (three!) and 11 on Nix to conclude they are both 4 billion years old. This seems ridiculous to me, correction, this is ridiculous.


The yellow dots on this image of Nix were placed there by NASA scientist Kelsi Singer. The red arrows were added by me which point to additional impacts.

This is NASA's "Proof" Charon impacted Pluto, 3 and 11 impacts verify it conclusively. this Kelsi Singer chart with lines squares, circles and triangles is NASA's "Proof" that Charon and Pluto collided and its an ancient event.

I'm sorry but, well I'm just sorry. I must be a complete imbecile. If Pluto and Charon collided leaving behind a cloud of debris that accreted into 4 objects and those objects only have 3 and 11 impacts as confirmation of 4 byr surfaces.

New evidence related to ammonia hydrates found on the moons of Pluto page 61 proves  through chemistry and photolysis this NASA theory is wrong. On page 67, I also show how the data in this chart is falsified by Kelsi Singer.

Deep breath and moving on.

The more time that goes by and the more frequently a lie is repeated the more easily it is accepted as fact.

Here's Robin Canup's Earth/Moon forming collision model. Pay attention to one thing in this animation, no moon is formed.

The only evidence of a Charon Pluto impact is the animation created by Robin Canup 10 years prior to our arrival at Pluto which was based off the large body impactor colliding with Earth theory that has now been proven to violate angular momentum constraints.

While both Nix and Hydra are too bright to be 4 billion years old they are different than each other further indicating they did not accrete from a common debris field of dust left over from a massive collision.

Simon Porter of NASA suggests micro meteorites keep hitting them knocking the surface clean.

Let's consider this weak explanation of micro meteorites knocking off or cleaning the surface's of the moons keeping them bright for 4 billion years.

The suggestion breaks down to this. Each time a micro meteorite impacts one of these small moons it completely cleans off the entire surface because of low gravity which means the moon would loose more mass than it acquired during the micro impact.

The moon's would then get smaller and smaller and smaller after 4 byr they wouldn't exist. All other known Plutinos have charcoal dark surfaces but Pluto's small satellites are white as ice from micrometeorites while similar nearby objects are not?

Larger masses acquire mass from impacts they don't loose more mass making them clean.

A weak foundation requires weak explanations in order to convince you of their strength which fly in the face of basic observational and logical facts. In other words, NASA says, don't believe what you see believe the smoke screen of reality that we provide in order to explain away that which doesn't make any sense so we can protect our weak foundation. Now go on your way and report in your journalistic reviews the wisdom that has been handed down from on high. The emperor will display his beautiful new wardrobe for all the wise and pure of heart to see.

Hence, I conclude there simply is no supportive evidence that Pluto and Charon collided 4 bya instead we have a model which was created 10 years before arriving at this system that took a specialist to build whom built a similar Earth Moon collision model that violates angular momentum constraints. The evidence above does, however, support the idea that these two bodies did NOT collide. I will soon explain a scenario which, I feel, more reasonably explains how these small moons got where they are, why their albedos are so bright, how Nix got a red zit and why they are not 4 byr old.

• What's the probability Pluto has a hot core?

Based on Robin's model which may violate angular momentum constraints, this impact theory's probability of occurring is not likely. If it took place the energy imparted could have partially differentiated Pluto but Charon remained uniform. This partial core based on Robin's model at best would have a radius of 350 km which is too small to remain hot for long, certainly not long enough to last 4 byr. Even with the impact model intact the puny core must be radioactively dead. It has to be, based on planetary scientist Francis Nimmo's statements. Nimmo says a core radius of at least 1000 km is required for a core to still be potentially radioactive.

Quote from F, Nimmo paper.
Thermal evolution of Pluto and implications for surface tectonics and a sub-surface ocean. By Guillaume Robuchon, Francis Nimmo
Pluto’s ice/rock+ice ratio is supposed to be about 0.65 (McKinnon et al., 1997) and for a differentiated Pluto the silicate core would be roughly 40% of the volume. The radiogenic heating provided by the core can potentially melt the mantle ice and form a subsurface ocean (Hussmann et al., 2006; McKinnon, 2006)
Bill Mckinnon says at most 67% of Pluto is rock by mass, 40% by volume meaning the largest the rocky core radius could be is 875 km but Robin's impact model puts the potential core closer to 350 km.
Pluto's radius is 1188, 40% volume of its rock = 875 km x 40% differentiation = 350 km

                    Without an impact,
it is next to a zero percent probability that Pluto is differentiated,
                     With an impact,
the core would only be 350 km
Stated another way, the core is 810 km smaller than required to be potentially able to sustain a hot core according to F. Nimmo.

Callisto is nearly exactly the same density as Pluto (1.85 g/cm3) and totes one of, if not, the oldest undisturbed surfaces in the solar system meaning its never been active. Its uniform and dead.

Callisto at twice the size of Pluto (twice the ability to create internal heat from gravitational crushing pressure), is at the same density and warmer than Pluto has more than twice the likelihood of becoming differentiated with a large enough core to be currently hot yet it has never resurfaced itself and is thus dead.

That's what a Pluto density of 1.86 g/cm3 at 40K and a total radius of 1187km gets you, a uniform cold dead interior.

These are the facts as I understand them.
Planetary Scientist Francis Nimmo states in "Ocean worlds in the outer solar system", if a planet's core radius is less than 1,000km it is not possible for it to be radioactively hot after 4 billion years.
Bill Mckinnon says Pluto's core is 67% of Pluto's mass but only 40% its volume. This means the core's radius if fully differentiated (unlikely even with a Charon impact) is only 875 km which is well below the minimum requirement deemed necessary by F. Nimmo.
Robin's impact model along with Bill's 40% ratio indicates the best largest core scenario puts it at a mere 350 km.
Even if complete differentiation occurred and there is a core it would still be too small to be hot if Pluto/Charon collided 4 byr.
These facts don't come from me, I'm simply repeating what they are saying. 
Conclusion NO HEAT from a 4 byr old core can possibly exist.

This image on the other hand, presents the mainstream mind set on how Pluto and Charon's interior looks because of NASA scientists being married to a collision model which has massive holes in it.

Pluto is probably less likely than 5% to be hot and alive from silicate rock with 26Al.

Actually, I'm going out on a limb and stating it's not possible based on Robin's model and Bill McKinnon's percent of rock ratio and Nimmo's size requirements statement.

Conclusion, while a fully differentiated core is completely unlikely based on the impact model, partial differentiation could have occurred, leaving Pluto with a core radius of about 350 km (puny) and cold.
Their facts and model kills Pluto's chance of being hot. 

Without heat, where's that put the subsurface ocean theory? 

• What's the probability of a water ocean?

We are now getting so far down the rabbit hole and away from NASA's original weak foundational model's true conclusions that to speak in probabilities is no longer practical or realistic.

• A water ocean depends on a hot core.
• A hot core depends on it being large enough to retain heat for 4 byr, (its not)
  
• A large enough hot core to retain its heat depends on it's radius being larger than 1,000 km
  
• A density of 1.86 g /cm3 doesn't self differentiate based on Callisto's example of larger volume, warmer temps and old surface

• The impact model of <40% differentiation along with 40% rocky volume of material puts Pluto's core radius at best at 350km.
• The impact model forces both planets to start out as uniform.
• The impact model is unlikely, based on all the other examples we see in our solar system.

The core's size depends on the density and size of Pluto along with a collision to separate out the materials. I've shown how close to impossible it is that there is a hot core based on the information provided by NASA scientists. At this point speculating further about the existence of a water ocean is improbable and I'm forced to stop thinking about these possibilities as reasonable potential outcomes.

Conclusion - the ocean theory is unlikely.

• Charon shows signs of a past subsurface fluid so what caused that, a hot core?

With NASA's model of a hot core in Pluto, you'd also need a hot core in Charon to explain the fluid that flowed at Vulcan Planum because that's the only source of heat energy they are presenting as a possible scenario for Pluto.

For them there are no other options, so they seem suspiciously silent on the subject of Charon's past fluid flow.

What caused this subsurface fluid on Charon? Certainly not density or heat from a theoretical impact

You know what I'm referring to, that stuff that coated the entire southern hemisphere with a smooth layer. how do their models address this? They don't so they ignore it. I haven't heard a peep out of one scientist on this subject.

If Pluto and Charon collided, then a differentiated core in Charon is not possible based on Robin Canup's collision model. In her model impacting bodies with preexisting differentiated cores dissipated into one body with a splattered debris field.

The version of the impact model that produced two bodies only worked if, both bodies were uniform upon collision and the collision did not heat the smaller impacting body (Charon) which remained at 30K-35K while the impacted body received all the available heat.

So in the collision model Charon didn't heat up enough to cause a preexisting uniform core to become differentiated and it stayed cold so no subsurface fluid from the impact. Bill McKinnon of NASA further supports this concept and says that with a density of 1.707 g/cm3 Charon is not differentiated so there's not a core but we can see there was previously a subsurface fluid. So their impact model creates a core on Pluto but not on Charon but we can see both have signs of existing and preexisting subsurface fluids. Now that ones a real problem for this Pluto/Charon impact model.

If Charon partially accreted out of material from an impact with Pluto why does it have two distinctly different looking hemispheres? The process of accretion is one where lots of small bits uniformly overlay and build up a gradual and consistent sphere. Even if Charon remained largely in tact after the impact vast quantities of small bits would have still overlaid the entire surface making it appear uniform. Instead, we see two completely different looking hemispheres. Don't forget there's no possibility of a hot core here.

Conclusion - this further challenges the feasibility of NASA's impact model.

• Whats the probability of a positive gravity anomaly existing at Sputnik Planitia?

With no subsurface ocean, the model of the positive gravity anomaly disappears. The positive gravity anomaly concept is built on the fact that there is a subsurface water ocean. No ocean equals no extra bulge of water creating a positive anomaly. We do see ices in a fluid state on the surface and so it seems reasonable to assume these same fluid ices are welling up from below. But NASA doesn't seem to care much about this obvious surface ocean of ices to support their theories. Instead they are committed to a subsurface ocean of 5% ammonia infused water because Bill McKinnon proposed it in 1997, after all, there's a hot radioactive core. More details on page 95.

Conclusion - no ocean equals no positive gravity anomaly.

• Whats the probability an impact at 60 degrees north caused polar wander?
  

Planetary scientist James Keane is now creating drawings or cartoons sprinkled with falsehoods as supporting evidence of an impact that created SP 60 degrees north and east of its current position.

This impact theory needs a subsurface ocean, above which a thinned ice crust is created allowing for an ocean of water to well up into in order to create a positive gravity anomaly to produce true polar wander which needs a radioactive core which needs an impact with Charon.

No hot core equals no water ocean which equals no positive gravity anomaly which equals no true polar wander. On the other hand, how these two animals became friends is a true polar wonder to me.

There are four reasons I give on Page 50 why SP is not an impact site. This is how the weak foundation causes the walls to buckle and crumble. All theories built on a weak foundational theory make their premise questionable. The foundation has to be solid for subsequent ideas to stand firm. If you don't have an impact or one that creates a large enough core you don't have heat without heat no ocean etc...

This is how a weak foundation causes the whole house to collapse?
I could go into more detail about inconsistencies in cold trapping theories along with other problems in these models but it gets down to the foundation. When the first model is built on a weak foundation everything else is a wish and prayer or a series of juggling acts to try to distract attention away from the crumbling foundation. 

I don't believe any of these scientists are involved in anything questionable. I simply think they are all drinking the same Jim Jones kool-aid without understanding how they got on top of this weak foundation.  

They are simply doing their best to explain things with a scalpel like focus and aren't stepping back to see how their parts don't fit together in their models. On top of this, other scientists in an effort to support these theories are creating new theories which are reported on by journalist who want to be the first to sell the new story and it all becomes a self feeding loop of weak information.
This is leading them further down the rabbit hole. 

There are some really smart scientists building some very helpful models which are designed to test ideas which are then presented in papers. When I try to read and understand these papers, its like reading a bowl of Chinese noddles. This stuff is complex and I'm impressed anyone can understand it. But understanding a complex mathematical formula doesn't mean they understand the foundational strength or weakness of the original hypothesis.

People are told this is the way it is, they believe it and do their darnedest to get on board with it but it aint true. Its an illusion built on a puff of smoke. If I can tear down this foundation as easily as I have, its smoke and mirrors.

This is as simple as it gets, even with an impact scenario Pluto's core is far too small to be hot. All these other complex modeled scenarios fail after this.

Their foundation is broke.

I usually struggle to understand half of the content in these scientific papers but what I consistently see and understand is that a myriad of complex variables and assumptions are required to build these models and then test them.

If any one assumption is wrong the entire outcome of the model can change drastically. As an example: take Einstein's cosmological constant. Einstein chose to force his math to match the outcome he wanted and so it did with lambda his cosmological constant but he was wrong the universe is expanding even though he didn't want it to.

Every added assumption complicates the model driving it potentially further and further from reality or perhaps closer depending on the model. Build complex model on top of complex model and the variables take on a life of their own.

It deserves repeating here, just because someone is smart enough to build complex mathematical models doesn't make their original premise correct. 

Einstein quote here "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough", so I carry on,

Sometimes I feel like I'm back in the geocentric age where a model proved the universe revolved around the Earth and for 1,400 years the geocentric model was a studied, known fact.

We need a modern day Copernican to stand up and simplify this modeling mayhem at Pluto/Charon. 

Heliocentric (Sun centered) vs Geocentric (Earth centered)

Einstein quote "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"

I don't want us to spend 1,400 years believing false concepts about Pluto.

I'm doing my best to dumb this stuff down at least to the level I can understand it and I hope that helps others who are similar to me in this regard.

I know I make mistakes with my interpretations but I'm also able to understand when logic becomes illogical or errant reasoning is no longer reasonable to accept.

I am simply trying to follow a logical line of thought that makes sense using the evidence and information NASA scientists and New Horizons are providing and the facts don't add up.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and step on toes. I simply don't see anyone else expressing any ideas contrary to NASA's.

                              If not me, then who?
                               What I can't not do,
                                       I must do,
                                 so I do what I can

A Strong Foundation

I may get some stuff wrong here but the one thing you can rely on is the foundation, mine is rock solid. Or should I say uniform with partial differentiation solid?
Nobody can disagree with this foundation.

We can dicker over time frames or degrees of magnitude or external influences like impacts but not the basis.

This foundation is irrefutable.

My favorite model
       Eh? hmm... Theory?

Currently my favorite model (theory) goes something like this.

Pluto and Charon at some point were in an elongated shared orbit creating tidal flexing heat energy. These conditions may not exist now but at some point they did. They had to.

While NASA's impact model is about 98% not likely to have occurred, this theory, on the other hand, is 99.9999% likely to have occurred putting the two theories at complete opposite extremes of the probability spectrum.

Tidal flexing is heat energy by squishing, rubbing, twisting, bending, pulling or kneading. Its induced energy from repeated back and forth movement creating heat.

Like I said before, I may get aspects of the walls and roof theories wrong but the foundation of my model is solid so let's build a structure on this foundation to see how well it stands up.

Lets Dance

Pluto and Charon when first introduced to each other spun around in eccentric elliptical orbits like a matador and a bull or two Latino dancers performing the Tango.

This early wild swing in and out caused tidal flexing. At this time they danced around in a way that caused them to pull and tug on each other bending and stretching while heating their innards.

All this back and forth motion turned the rock hard condensed and compressed gasses into softened expanded fluid gasses and eventually gaseous gasses creating increased internal pressures.

As these gasses migrated from their more compressed dense form to the next expanded form, pressure's built in the interior of each planet.

Charon is smaller and more of a water icy sphere while Pluto is larger and compositionally different with more nitrogen (N2), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) ices (aka super volatile gasses) which have much lower triple points.
These ices on Pluto reach their triple points from 40K to 80K. This means Pluto needs less heat energy for it's ices to expand into fluids and gasses creating pressure.

On Earth water is the gas that sits naturally at its triple point and can thus easily transition between all three (solid, liquid, gas) states.

Nitrogen on Earth becomes a liquid at 77k but we have more atmospheric pressure than Pluto.

NASA scientists have reported that because of Pluto's seasons, nitrogen can reach its triple point on Pluto even without tidal flex. With a little added pressure and temperature so can CH4 and CO.

There is clear evidence something on Pluto has been in a liquid state at some point.

I showed this below image to a smart guy and indicated this is fluid flowing out of cryovolcano mounds similar to lava creating tributaries rivers and lakes out of Pluto lava.

He said, "I don't see it".
Eyes wide shut.

Pluto having a larger volume and being more dense would create a larger gravitational flexing effect on Charon so even though Charon's gasses needed more heat energy to form into fluids and gasses, that energy was provided by the larger more intense gravity of Pluto.

Pluto on the other hand with it's compositional makeup was able to convert its gasses from solid to fluid to gas more easily as their triple points were much lower. Charon with it's smaller size but still quite large at half the size of Pluto was able to provide the necessary flex energy to raise Pluto's frozen gasses to their triple points creating subsurface fluids gasses and pressure. Charon needed more energy to transition it's gasses from one state to the next which Pluto provided while Pluto required less and Charon was able to satisfy that need.

As the planets orbited each other and their innards softened into fluids and gasses the pressure grew and grew. 

Several paths could have taken place at this point.

1. Impacts could have cracked their surfaces releasing the pressurized gasses.
2. The kneading process and migrating tidal bulge could have flexed and fractured the surfaces.
   
3. Frozen gasses converting to more hot voluminous fluids and pressurized gasses may have softened the crust creating cracks.
4. The volatile gaseous gasses could have simply exploded out of the crust.
5. Or a combination of the above could have happened,

These are the potentially shaky or holey parts of my structure. Not that any of them are shaky as concepts or explanations its just that any one or combinations could be the explanation. The questionable part would be the exact order, sequence and timing which are like the mortar (or is that Mordor) filling in the cracks of my walls.

There are several directions the Pluto/Charon story can go from here so I will pick the one I like most and ride it till I choose another but up till this point these are strongly supported concepts.

We have two bodies creating softened pressurized interiors on each other while compositionally different, both bodies are under extreme stress like a ticking time bomb just waiting for a reason to explode.

This video shows liquid nitrogen N2 expanding and exploding.

Take notice of two things in the video.

1. A dropped beer can's carbon dioxide under pressure ruptures the can releasing an explosion of gasses and fluid. Pluto has carbon monoxide and the beer can is the equivalent of our pressurized planet's being impacted by another object.
2. One plastic trash can implodes from an extreme change of pressure, an internal quick release of gas occurs causing a collapse then it rebounds outward and launches upward. This is the equivalent of nitrogen gasses rapidly releasing from our planets and launching shards into space fracturing the surface crust at Vulcan Planum and maybe Sputnik Planitia.

Either or both demonstrate the process.

Over time Pluto/Charon's orbit's settle, lessening the energy induced but as they settle into tidally locked formations, their pulling force focuses primarily on two spots.

The near and far side of each planet is being tugged on and gravity is trying to now make these two softened bodies into an egg  shape.

This is called tidal bulge, its why we have two high tides each day. This bulge occurs with both fluids and solids.

This is the same effect Pluto has on Charon and vice versa both are being bulged by the other.

Thanks bud!

Tidal bulge will cause each planet to be weakened and want to crack at both their near and far sides. Eccentric and elliptical orbits cause the tidal bulge's intensity to increase and decrease due to variations in proximity. Axial spin would cause this bulge to travel around the planets. Impacts would potentially exploit weaknesses in the crust created by rotating bulge and flex depending on their impact energy and location. As the orbits become less eccentric and more circular the axial spin would also slow. Despinning also generates heat. The oscillating energy intensity would reduce while at the same time the traveling wandering bulge would slow creating a more focused energetic defect effect but would still rotate around the planet heating various parts.

The tidal pull causes the area perpendicular to the bulge to feel a squish or a compression while the area of direct alignment bulges in turn experiencing an expansion which would likely cause expansion fractures which we see all over Pluto. Add subsurface pressures to this natural expansion force and expansion cracks seem inevitable.

That's one simple version of how these two bodies danced. Lets complicate things to the point, I get lost in the variables.
This is where a model could perform wonders and help decide which fork in the road has the highest probability of being the right choice.

Both of these below videos are interesting as they show some very peculiar effects of gyroscopic spin. Not only did both Pluto/Charon spin on their axis independent of each other but their gravitational influence would have induced torques onto each other and as they sought to find their combined balance point they both became oriented such that their north poles are facing at 120 degrees relative to the ecliptic plane. Their poles still wobble up to 24 degrees up and down so they are still in the process of settling down and finding that sweet spot. Once the two planets tidally locked, they now act gyroscopically as one. It took time for them to twist torque and turn into their current orientations but this is the point of greatest balance. They are taking all their imbalances in mass and through tidal locking and gyroscopic spin they have oriented their poles at their current angle.

This is an excellent 15 minute video on gyroscopic phenomenon by professor Eric Laithwaite.

Fast forward to the 20 minute mark to see an interesting effect induced in gyroscopic spinning bodies that are wiggled. Their axis changes from slight wobbles.

Tidal bulge will cause each planet to be weakened and want to crack at both their near and far sides. Eccentric and elliptical orbits  cause an increasing and decreasing intensity due to variations in proximity. Axial spin causes the tidal bulge to rotate around the planet. Rotating tidal bulge creates undulating tidal flex energy to move around the planet. Impacts would potentially exploit weaknesses in the crust created by rotating bulge and flex depending on their impact energy and location.

When Pluto and Charon started their elliptical dance they would have been spinning on their axis and their axes were likely not aligned so one spun in a slightly different orientation than the other. Due to uneven mass distribution and gyroscopic spin creating a torque induced tilt the two planets would try to align their equators (greatest gravitational mass of influence) with each other. This would cause them to wobble and further twist and torque along their spin axis until they found their happy spot or Torque Induced Tilt angle of equilibrium.

This would have caused the tidal bulge to migrate around the planets. Charon being smaller would have spun down sooner than Pluto meaning just like our small moon stopped spinning and tidally locked to the Earth the smaller Charon would stop spinning before Pluto. This would cause the bulge on Charon to stay focused on the near and far side of Charon facing Pluto while on Pluto the bulge would still wander around the planet slowly as Pluto spun down to tidally lock with Charon. What effect this actually had on the two planets is anybodies guess so I'll do just that.

Here's a complete guess or shot in the dark scenario which may explain a couple features on Pluto.

This image is to help in case you don't know where certain features are located on Pluto as I will be using a few named regions soon. I just noticed Piri Planitia is not named, its the basin west of Viking and south of Venera Terra.

Please buckle up and hold on to your hats were going down a rabbit hole. 

In the below image I try to show how there are some impressions or fingerprints on Pluto which are trying to describe how there have been subsurface fluid flows that have migrated around Pluto.

Some are currently active while others have cooled and sunk inward.

These features could be from natural seasonal cycles or from the flexing that took place between Pluto/Charon.

Sputnik Planitia appears to be at the center of the energy release and is currently still hot. Viking Terra is a bulge in the land ice from subsurface pressure currently pushing up. Piri Planitia (western finger) is an extension of Viking Terra but has cooled and sunk creating a basin.

The NE finger shows the same basic shape and pattern as Piri Planitia indication it was warmed from below but is now cooled. At the time I created this outline, I was only seeing impacts as possible energy sources for creating these land features.

This thought has migrated into tidal flex from eccentric orbits being the source of energy as it was a more powerful form of energy lasting for many many years, whereas, impacts are fast and short lived induced energy sources.

Below are some closeup shots of these areas.
The left image shows a discolored section north of Viking Terra that has subsurface fluid outlines and it merges with Viking Terra. The image on the right shows how, to the west of Viking Terra the fluid flow pattern follows naturally right into Piri Planitia (Dried Western Basin). Viking Terra itself is a distended bulging land mass demonstrated by the central area having more methane snow which accumulates more on elevated surfaces and the edges have red tholin which appears to be sliding off the raised mound. Viking Terra's mound is also bounded by fractures running E/W on the top and bottom of the bulge. Piri Planitia is an extension of the land bulge but is a basin created by sunken dried and/or frozen subsurface material that once flowed and was pressurized but is now a subsurface cavity.

These next two images are closeups of Piri Planitia on the left and what I call the NE finger on the right.

This above image shows an impression in the land ice which resides to the east of and near the southern most portion of the ridge line west of Wright Mons.

The image above and left is an odd area (Venera Terra) where I've outlined in red a terrain that looks like it was a series of massive ice blocks where fluids flowed between them then froze in place.  

If you look closely you can see water like channels running between large blocks of smooth ice. This area looks somewhat similar to the mounds and troughs that make up the surface of Sputnik Planitia.

The ice melt at Venera Terra looks something like this. There is also a long fracture running NS indicating expansion fracturing from subsurface pressure in this area which is just above Piri Planitia.

All of these images indicate to me that subsurface fluids were at some point heating and expanding softening the surface ices. These features look slightly different when in different locations on Pluto but all have a fluid signature. These features were either created by tidal flex from a moving tidal bulge or they are created by Pluto/Charon's orbit around the Sun. I suggest they are from the tidal bulge which had to exist and was moved around the planet as the two planets moved around each other.

One thing they all seem to have in common is the closer they are to SP the more active they look and the further they are from SP the more fossilized, frozen and sunken. As Pluto was still spinning on it's axis, fluids would have been shifting with the tidal bulge. Once Pluto tidally locked to Charon the fluids settled in alignment with Charon. This then placed the hottest and most distorted section of the planet at SP and opposite. This then allowed the extended fingers of damaged areas to cool freeze and sink creating features like Piri Planitia and the NE finger.

Saturn's moon Enceladus currently experiences tidal stretching which causes the ice crust to spread apart creating long fractures.

We call these fractures tiger stripes. Subsurface gasses and fluid vents out of these fractures.

This is basically how I see Pluto when it had active tidal stretch energy.

NASA scientists suggest all the expansion fractures on Pluto are from a subsurface ocean that is freezing and expanding but on Enceladus we see an example of expansion fractures created by tidal flex heat energy not cooling and freezing.

Below is a conceptualized drawing of what is likely occurring on Enceladus and this comes close to what I think was happening on Pluto back when there was active tidal flex energy (In this below image, replace the H2O with nitrogen and the rock with tidal flex heat).

Pluto's spider is an area that was the central point of upwelling pressure. The land ice cracked into multiple N/S lines and bulged along these fractures. At the center of this pressure zone a cryovolcano developed.

To the left is the cryovolcano at the center of the spider which is the central point around which pressures grew and finally released.

This process is similar to what  we see on Earth at the Hawaiian Islands. As the Earth's Pacific Ocean plate moves over the hot spot under the islands, fluid rock is forced onto the surface.

In the case of Pluto the land ice plate isn't moving over the hot spot rather the subsurface fluid or tidal bulge and flex was being moved by the Pluto/Charon eccentric elliptical dance combined with the slow spin down of Pluto. Before Pluto tidally locked to Charon it's spin slowed to a crawl as it did, the tidal bulge and subsurface pressures slowly crawled across the planet seeking out weaknesses creating fractures and bulges.

The larger image below is without annotations.
All of these features seem to indicate the hot spot that was bulging Pluto also traveled around the planet softening and cracking it as it migrated from one location to the next. When Pluto/Charon locked this softened subsurface material focused on SP and the side facing Charon.

So here we are, Pluto/Charon had their innards heated by tidal flex. As these two planets spun on their axis and experienced eccentric orbits creating pulsating heating, pressure rose and fell in various locations on Pluto. Pluto shows signs of releasing its heat energy somewhat more natural by fracturing its crust venting gas then oozing fluid but what appears to also be the case is that pockets of heated fluid built in various locations. Tidal flex could have and likely did separate out some rock creating a small or partial core which helped lengthen and more gradually release the heat discharge over a longer time frame.

If you compare the fractures on Pluto versus Charon, Charon has primarily one massive fracture running diagonally, while Pluto has many fractures in many locations running in different directions. This suggest to me Pluto cracked often releasing pressure more regularly and gradually while Charon primarily cracked once in a more explosive manner. Charon exploded once violently because its crust is made of harder water ice and its crust is thicker relative to its smaller diameter so it would have built up a more explosive force before releasing it in one massive event.

Charon is mostly water ices with some evidence of ammonia on its surface so because of its size and composition Charon would have cooled much faster than Pluto. After an explosive release raining fragments would have fallen back onto Charon preserving them intact as we see today.

Pluto on the other hand is compositionally different its gasses convert at lower temperatures and its larger and denser. All these factors would cause Pluto's fluids to stay in a mobile state for a much longer period. Charon's crust being the same thickness as Pluto's is still much thicker relative to its own size. This makes Charon's crust much more brittle less pliable and stronger so it is less likely to flex or bend with the wind. Pluto's size and composition allows it to act more like a Willow bending with stress, whereas, Charon is more rigid like an Oak resisting change but when change happens its more catastrophic.

Once Pluto stopped spinning, the bulge energy would remain focused directly towards and away from Charon. This would allow time for the cracks to freeze and seal in turn building up more subsurface pressure which was now focused on one area which would be directly in line with Charon. The same pressurized conditions would exist on Charon. At this stage the heat energy continues to grow internally and along comes a little red rabbit called Junior or Jr1.

When New Horizons flew past Pluto it encountered another object within a few months.

This object's name is 1994 Jr1. I call it Junior, Jr1. Junior is red and has some interesting features, NASA scientists wrote a paper on Jr1 (the paper.)
excerpt;
because the close approach distance is variable, Pluto’s perturbation on JR1 is effectively chaotic. While this could be described as Pluto quasisatellite (a quasi moon) behavior...,

since JR1’s orbit is still primarily controlled by Neptune, a more precise description would be a series of periodic Pluto scattering events, one of which JR1 is currently experiencing. Regardless of semantics, JR1 is certainly a case of Pluto exerting its gravitation influence over a fellow 3:2 resonant object. 

What would happen if red Junior hopped onto Charon? Jr1 is 250 km in diameter (155 miles), Mordor is 475 km (295 miles) if an object approximately the size of JR1 impacted Charon it would easily leave a RED footprint of splattered debris 475 km. Neptune forces groups of Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) into a 3:2 shared resonant orbital frequency creating conditions for impacts between those objects at least once every 2.4 million years. The 3:2 resonance means for every 3 times Neptune goes around the Sun this group of objects called Plutinos goes around twice.

Saturn Moon Daphnis creating waves in the ring of ice crystals

Neptune corals objects into clusters it creates a wave which objects then ride and perturbs them such that they periodically collide.

This is how Pluto and Charon met they were introduced on the 2:3 resonance dance floor by Neptune.

This introduction could have happened a mere 1 billion years ago or much less.

There is absolutely no reason why their introduction couldn't have happened recently.

The fact that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt suggest it spent a lot of time growing via collisions with small objects. Charon at half Pluto's size and compositionally different suggest it had a long time to develop on its own as well. 30 to 50 AU from the sun objects would have coalesced much slower into large objects than closer to the sun. Pluto and Charon are two compositionally different distinct objects. They formed separately over a long period of time the fact Pluto is the largest Kuiper Belt Object that exist indicates it has a long old history. Charon at half it's size is not so young either. They both spent a lot of time accreting to their current size. Because of their compositional differences one developed tholin and an atmosphere from the tidal flex while the other did not.

This is how Robin Canup says it in her paper supporting the Pluto/Charon collision model.
Large objects formed through so-called oligarchic growth with low Vrel could have become orbitally isolated from one another and thus have grown primarily through the accretion of small material. However, it seems probable that such isolation would have been periodically overcome, as growing large bodies would have become increasingly dynamically crowded, leading to episodes of mutual collisions among ‘‘battling oligarchs’’. Furthermore, the sweeping of Neptune’s mean-motion resonances through the Kuiper belt as that planet began migrating outward may have itself instigated large collisions in previously dynamically stable zones and/or acted to increase the surface density of large objects captured within resonances.

Robin is implying Pluto/Charon collided and Neptune caused it. I'm saying they were merely introduced eccentrically by Neptune and then they danced.

Hal Levison built a model based on the migration of planets aka the Nice Model showing how long it took Neptune to migrate out to its current orbit.
At about 0.88 billion years Neptune passes Uranus and begins radically influencing the orbits of material in the outer solar system creating the late heavy bombardment.

A few million years later it migrated to its current orbital distance of about 30 AU. It would have then had to create the wave or cluster of objects in the 3:4 & 2:3 resonance zone to form the group called Plutinos. Getting this cluster of objects corralled aka shepherded could have easily taken 1 byr from the time our solar system came into existence.

This Nice model timeline conflicts with the idea Pluto/Charon collided 4 billion years ago since Neptune wasn't even in position until 900 million years after the formation of the solar system to push Pluto and Charon together.

If it took Neptune as long as the Nice model indicates to get to its current orbit that means Pluto and Charon couldn't have been introduced until 400 million years later than NASA indicates. NASA suggests Pluto's moons Nix and Hydra have impacts that are 4 byr but this Nice model (which most scientist agree occurred) timeline for Neptune taking about a billion years to get into a position where it could force Pluto and Charon near each other indicates NASA's interpretation of 3 & 11 impacts on Nix and Hydra are incorrect. Based on the Nice model Neptune couldn't have brought Pluto and Charon together until 3.6 byr ago and likely later.

I'm also suggesting the thing that initiated all this explosive activity in the Pluto/Charon system was an impact on Charon at Mordor by an object nearly identical to Jr1 which was pushed into Pluto/Charon's path by Neptune. Neptune was responsible for Pluto/Charon's orbital dance which created subsurface pressures. Neptune also created the Mordor impact that explosively released pent up gasses and allowed the fluid to spill out from below Charon's crust.

Mordor

Mordor Nebula (not really)

The part of this impact that I keep starring at is the second inner most circle depression, it is not outlined with arrows in this image, it has an egg shape, its in the middle of the blue arrows, it has a lighter colored raised rim and a clear egg shaped footprint. This is where the central primary impact occurred and the object was traveling diagonally right to left (4 to 10 O-clock). 

While nothing more than tidal flex need be employed to explain what we see in this Pluto/Charon system adding impacts helps expand the story. Comet 1994 Jr1 is a red tholin covered object that is perturbed by Neptune to within Pluto/Charon's barycentric gravitational influence every 2.4 million years. If an object similar to comet 1994 Jr1, slammed into Charon at it's north pole (which appears to have happened) it would create a Mordor looking impact site. I like to add this scenario to my story as it incorporates the red tholin impact we see on Charon's North Pole.

Three zones in this image explain the direction of impact. The inner egg raised rim is on a diagonal. the dark outer ring with a raised rim on the NW edge has multiple rings lining the rim wall indicating material was pushed outward and upward in this direction. Then there is the very light dusting of tholin outside the impact zone scattered to the NW whereas, the SE area shows very little tholin. This is a diagonal impact from lower right to upper left.

So adding an impact to this theory changes the basic premise very little but adds this one caveat.
A red tholin covered object similar to Jr1  hit Charon on it's North Pole at a time when both Pluto and Charon's shared orbit's were settling down but their internal pressures were escalating .

Charon was filled with internal pressure like a shaken beer can or bomb while Pluto was gravitationally pulling on Charon and along comes Jr1 delivering a huge smack on the north pole, All three forces could have popped the cork.

Here's a cool video on how fast a rapidly expanding gas like propane (similar to nitrogen) spins a ping pong ball.

If these gasses were held contained within Charon because of its harder and relatively thicker crust, a hard smack on the north pole could blast the bottom off Charon. Charon's crust is stronger than Pluto's both because of its composition and Charon's smaller size.

Even if it wasn't a complete catastrophic loss of the entire southern hemisphere large blocks would have been dislodged.

If Charon merely cracked along the diagonal fracture line spilling out fluid, the fluid would have frozen on its way to the surface and mounded up around the diagonal fracture.

Instead we see the entire southern hemisphere smoothed over indicating the entire southern portion was catastrophically disrupted at once.

Here's what happens if you fill a six foot balloon with nitrogen as it warms and expands.


OK enough fun, back to the plot.

Take a moment to carefully look at the below images as they show a lot of fragments lying embedded in the fluid like frozen southern hemisphere of Charon. These are the bits that fell back onto Charon after this event. Not only are there angular chunks lying around but there are angular depressions with straight edges. I haven't marked all of them with arrows so find a few of your own.

This is strong suggestive evidence that massive amounts of angular ice blocks and angular debris was launched off Charon while the fluid was flowing onto the surface then as the surface was cooling the chunks fell back onto the surface with very low kinetic energy.

This Mordor impact added the energy required to initiate this domino effect of Charon blowing shards of crust off it's southern hemisphere, Pluto's gravity helped focus the impact effect onto Pluto. Some fragments were launched into space while others created internal shock waves within Pluto which most heavily fractured the southern portion of SP facing Charon.

Pluto's pent up pressure then released, creating the deep pits by launching more debris into a lower orbit. At some point all this orbiting debris was cleaned up by the few small moons which remain or by Pluto/Charon's gravitational perturbations which ejected the rest.

It's irrelevant whether the impact at Mordor initiated this event but I like to include it. 

Pluto and Charon would have been bulging toward each other at their nearest points and the far sides would experience a slight bulge as well weakening both sides at these points.

Pluto's gravity would have pulled Charon's shards directly toward it creating massive disruptions on Pluto's surface facing Charon as we see in this image. Many of the shards would have hit Pluto some would have missed.

The shards that missed likely became Hydra and Kerberos launching with enough force to place them into a high orbit. This is why Kerberos' albedo so closely matches Charon's but Nix doesn't.

With the SP area already weakened by subsurface pressures and the bulge a direct hard hit of shards on Pluto facing Charon would have sent P shock waves through Pluto and out towards the southern portion of SP creating the deep pits. Both Charon's southern hemisphere and Pluto south of SP show the deepest damage in line with each other. In the above image of Pluto facing Charon the greatest degree of disturbance is seen in the southern portion of Pluto. Charon's south, Pluto's south facing Charon and south of SP they all align. Or stated in the opposite manner. You don't see a smooth fluid surface on Charon's north hemisphere, no serious damage on Pluto's north facing Charon and no damage north of SP.

What evidence do I have that the southern portion of SP has deep pits?

These icebergs show how the largest bergs (highest elevation are sitting in the deepest part of SP. While moving northward the large icebergs are ground into medium bergs then as they are beached in the north they become smaller rubble bergs. Below is an elevation map of this area.

Bottom yellow outlines big bergs, green outlines medium, top yellow outlines rubble bergs.

Icebergs with high elevation above the fluid surface of SP are submerged deeper in the fluid in order to maintain their height above.

Below you can see how land cracks follow into the fluid creating troughs in the fluid's viscous surface.
NASA image drawn on left mine on right. As we travel south, these troughs disappear as the depth drops so deep the troughs no longer exist.

Charon shows debris on it's southern hemisphere, Pluto show's angular disturbances on the southern hemisphere side facing Charon, Hydra at an elevated orbit matches closely the albedo of Charon while Nix at a lower orbit matches closely the albedo of Pluto, Nix also has a red tholin zit which came from Pluto, the albedo of the moons support the idea they are young. While my explanation of these observations could be wrong, a lot of things line up to support it.

The initial build up of pressure could rise to the point of creating an explosive scenario especially on Charon, however, once the initial release of gaseous gasses occurred there would then be more of an oozing release of pressure as the fluid gasses seeped onto the surface. Pluto/Charon's early stages of experiencing tidal stretch would be the most energetic creating the greatest variance between cold and hot pressure. In time the tidal stretch would subdue while the pressure's built until there was a release. The orbital eccentricity would continue to wind down as the fluids spill out more gently. Eventually their orbits would become locked and circular removing the energy required to sustain the flowing fluid state of the gasses.

Whether Charon had a self initiated explosion or an impact initiated explosion both scenarios explain the small moons,

The zit on Nix indicates the age of Nix is young, For there to be a red impact, a very small tholin covered object must have been ejected from Pluto's surface. For that to occur, Pluto had to be formed into a large enough body to produce tholin, It had to travel around the sun often enough to convert surface materials into complex hydrocarbons (tholin) then it had to be impacted or explode to launch fragments into orbit that in time could collide. This zit and the albedo strengthens the idea that Nix is young and is a chunk of Pluto. The fast spin of the four moons could support their youthful ages theory as well

The small moons are in circular orbits with Pluto/Charon. This fact is used to suggest they are old. Mutually gravitationally captured objects do take longer amounts of time for their eccentric orbits to settle into circular orbits. But objects ejected off a body simply need the right ejection velocity and they quickly enter into circular orbits. Similar to all the satellites we launch into circular orbits around the Earth.

Above I showed a video of a beer bottle having the bottom knocked off by shock waves to demonstrate how red comet Jr1 could have impacted Charon at Mordor in turn knocking off southern chunks of crust with high kinetic energy. Then chunks of Charon hit Pluto doing the same thing in turn knocking off chunks at SP with less kinetic energy. I used shock waves to explain that process but lets get a little more scientificky or scientistical.

The subject of P and S waves is where I'm headed next and it's not as boring as it sounds (well maybe it is).
P waves are Primary waves aka compression waves and they travel fast through objects whereas S (secondary) waves create an undulation like a sine wave or an S lying down. S waves propagate more slowly than P waves. Here's a couple videos to help out.

Sorry about all those videos, sometimes I get a little intrigued and lost in videos like this but the last part of the last video most closely relates to what I'm trying to get across.

P waves are compression waves that act like a slinky propagating impact energy from one side to the other this same effect occurs on a  planet as compression shock waves move from one side to the other through gas, liquid or solid material. The shards that hit Pluto hit on the southern hemisphere so the P waves wouldn't propagate from a central point (thickest part of the planet) as demonstrated in the video instead they would have been aimed off toward one side as we see in the southern hemisphere. The S waves could only travel through the rock hard crust ice flexing and fracturing the surface more slowly than and after the P waves launched bits off into space. This would have cracked SP further assisting with its collapse and subsequent oozing fluids. On top of all that there would have been multiple shards hitting Pluto creating multiple P/S wave patterns. When two waves come together such that their peaks meet, their strength is amplified.

Here's an example of a freak (rogue) wave where two wave peak's join to amplify their effect. This is a perfectly calm day, the ocean is quiet, people have no reason to be concerned there is little to no wind, no tsunami, no volcanic activity simply two waves out of nowhere joined peak to peak and people got hurt. Think about this same effect happening on Pluto at SP, similar to a huge clap and then pop pieces are hurled into space.

 
This picture or story seems to come close to what we observe (at least it can logically cover all the conditions observed). This picture allows Pluto and Charon to be uniform, compositionally different, have staggered time frames for fluid flows, it explains the fluid on a uniformed core of Charon, the creation of small moons, the alignment of SP with Charon, provides an explanation for the deep pits of SP, the shallower large diameter basin, the collapsed basin, the sunken depressions at Piri Planitia and the NE finger, the atmosphere, the impact at Mordor, the disturbances on Pluto's Charon facing side, the debris on Charon's smooth surface, the red tholin impact on Nix, the albedo of Nix and Hydra and possibly the youthful spin of the moons.

For this scenario to play out, however, the Pluto/Charon dance could not have initiated 4 billion years ago. It must have been more recent. I'm not smart enough to accurately indicate what that time frame would be but less than a billion years seems likely.

NASA's foundation is built on a collision model that took place 4 byr between Pluto and Charon.
Mine is based on elliptical orbits that occurred much more recently.
Which foundation do you feel explains what we see in this incredibly complex and diverse system?
Whats in your model?

As usual if NASA scientists and I disagree you should default to believing them over me.
Why do I keep saying this when I spend so much time trying to prove their theories wrong?

Two reasons
1. Nobody else is challenging any of NASA's theories and that seems fundamentally wrong it goes counter to the whole concept of the scientific process.
2. My knowledge is so rudimentary compared to these people it's ridiculous.
When it gets down to the fine details on things like elliptical, eccentric or circular orbits or albedos or tidal flex, bulge or lock, I have a general idea about these subjects but when it comes to the details and intricacies I'm a novice so my conclusions with these subjects could be wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong it simply means my knowledge is very limited and that leaves me susceptible to making stupid statements without knowing it.

That said even with my basic understanding of these things, I find extreme problems with their theories so I've developed my own.
Choose for yourself what is or isn't closer to what you observe or understand about Pluto/Charon. I have a world of respect for all these scientists.

Page 89 has a good historical accounting of how scientists ended up with their hypotheses related to Pluto. This "Foundations" page gives an overview of all my ideas presented about Pluto over the course of 1.5 years while page 89 covers a 2.5 year time frame as has many new observations and discoveries. If you liked this page I'm pretty sure you'll really like page 89.

< Page 55 Concept Collision

Slight of Hand Page 57 >