Friday, April 15, 2016 The 85th Joseph Henry Lecture
In this video at the 1 hr, 10 min 20 sec mark Alan Stern is explaining NASA's cold trap theory about how tholin was placed on Charon. He makes an interesting statement about their cold trap theory. Alan says, "We are going to be able to test this [theory] but not until about the year 2050, or if we send a spacecraft there sooner that can work in low light levels" suggesting New Horizons wasn't capable of detecting tholins at the south pole light levels. |
|
Convenient timing or deliberate slight of hand?
Make an assumption "cold trapping" Wait a year then Say one thing (we have proof), show another (picture without proof). Wait four months then. Show something (grainy image) and say nothing of proof. Creative deception? Feels a lot like the shell game. Look over there, while I move the pea over here. Watch this video, its important and relevant. |
|
The chart in this article has quite a large slop factor (error bar).
The vertical bars are the error range or potential range of reflectance variance within that latitude of Charon. Any point along the vertical bar is just as potentially correct as any other point. The further away from sun light or the further into Pluto Shine light the greater the slop factor. The red line is the upper potential reflectance while the blue line is the lower potential reflectance at that particular latitude. NASA picked the halfway point along each bar but any other point could have been selected and been equally as accurate. |
Or these closely matching points on the bars could have been used placing their alignment to the northern hemisphere reflectance almost identical. |
The point is, arbitrarily selecting the midway point along the bars is no more accurate than any other point and the slop factor grows significantly the further into darkness or Pluto shine we travel. |
Another thing that's odd to me is how the article says.
The polar location of these deposits and their presence on both hemispheres indicates that the most likely explanation is cold-trapping at Charon's poles of methane (CH4) gas escaping from Pluto's atmosphere (bottom right). Cold trapped methane (CH4) gasses are what they speak of but the image shown represents nitrogen (notice the n in the black inset) not methane (CH4). Quote from a paper, page 4 N2, CO, and CH4 ices are all volatiles at Pluto surface temperature, of which CH4 is the least volatile, N2 is the most volatile of these gasses. Seems to me this is like saying cars are the source of air pollution then showing a train billowing out carbon smoke and soot. If they're going to make a statement about cold trapping methane on Charon why are they showing N2? I don't think anyone's being deceitful here, I just don't understand the logic. |
Then there's this temperature chart indicating it gets really cold between the 30 to 90 degree latitudes during the winter years when there is no sunshine on that hemisphere while the equator stays relatively steady.
Since Pluto and Charon are tidally locked and tilted at the same angle to the Sun and torque and twist each other by up to 24 degrees with their axial wobble, Pluto's equator should also have this same type of steady temperature range but that doesn't jive with the NASA theory that SP is a cold trap zone like the north and south pole region of Charon is supposed to be. At the very least these temperature bands disprove the theory of Sputnik Planitia's N2 ices being the result of cold trapping. |
I don't believe these scientists are doing this intentionally, they are simply drinking the kool-aid and don't know how else to approach these problems.
They predetermined what would be found when we arrived and they are now entrenched in their formulas and models and can't see beyond them. This narrows their vision and shuts their eyes to observations that are staring them in the face. They are prisoners to their own intelligence and this mathematically finite way of viewing things. One formula is used to support the next and on it goes. |