January 30th, 2017
Since I am not a scientist, relatively straight forward math problems for a smart scientist prove difficult for me.
I'm pretty good at observing things but not so much so with the math or formulas to prove those observations.
Sputnik Planitia is filled with frozen nitrogen which acts a bit like a toothpaste or silly putty fluid depending on temperature and atmospheric pressures as Pluto seasonally migrates around the Sun in it's elliptical orbit. Each season on Pluto last 62 years. This means some areas of SP will become more fluid than others at different times of the Pluto cycle (248 Earth years).
I'm pretty good at observing things but not so much so with the math or formulas to prove those observations.
Sputnik Planitia is filled with frozen nitrogen which acts a bit like a toothpaste or silly putty fluid depending on temperature and atmospheric pressures as Pluto seasonally migrates around the Sun in it's elliptical orbit. Each season on Pluto last 62 years. This means some areas of SP will become more fluid than others at different times of the Pluto cycle (248 Earth years).
|
The fluid like nitrogen at SP is a thick viscous material whose viscosity changes with Pluto's seasonal changes. I don't know if this would have an impact on the nitrogen's density but it would certainly effect the fluids reaction to impacts. Ice bergs 2 miles high are seen floating within the nitrogen fluid which is more dense than the water icebergs. The question I would like to answer relates to Pluto's gravity, the nitrogen & iceberg's density along with the elevated height of the icebergs or how much of the iceberg is submerged below the surface to support the berg above (buoyancy). Knowing this value would allow us to make reasonable estimates of how deep an area of the nitrogen is within SP. This is a really important thing to understand since knowing the depth of the fluid allows us to draw important conclusions about Sputnik Planitia's nitrogen depth at various locations. Why does that matter? There are two significant reasons I can think of. |
|
Even without knowing the math formulas or equations that could reliably provide me with this information I can still get some relative depth information from observational references.
Icebergs in deeper fluid are elevated higher above the fluid within which they float.
Icebergs in deeper fluid are elevated higher above the fluid within which they float.
There's a lot going on in that picture because there's a lot going on at SP. I tried to make it about as self explanatory as I could.
But there are two area's I'd like to point out the NW area where bergs run aground and the South area where 2 mile high Norgay Montes icebergs sit in the deepest part of SP.
Viewing the bergs this way allows us to know where the fluid is deepest or shallowest by the elevation and size of the bergs floating on top. Tall bergs equals deep fluid, small bergs equal shallow fluid.
But there are two area's I'd like to point out the NW area where bergs run aground and the South area where 2 mile high Norgay Montes icebergs sit in the deepest part of SP.
- In this image it is clear that large tall elevated bergs hang out in the deeper fluid which is furthest out from the land ice and to the south.
- As the bergs run aground and migrate north and west they encounter shallower fluid which causes them to scrape against hardened land ice below which grinds them down into medium bergs.
- The smallest bergs are ground into rubble as they are beached (labeled with "C's" below).
Viewing the bergs this way allows us to know where the fluid is deepest or shallowest by the elevation and size of the bergs floating on top. Tall bergs equals deep fluid, small bergs equal shallow fluid.
This allows us to understand that Norgay Montes is sitting in a very deep section of SP as they are the tallest appearing bergs floating on SP. We also don't see any polygonal mounds or troughs in the area to the east of Notgay Montes. This is one peace of information that helps tell a significant story about SP's southern area. Some of these bergs at Norgay Montes are two miles high.
This is where some calculations would be nice. I can only guesstimate that the fluid is at least two to four miles deep and could be deeper at this location. If there are any smart scientists out there that would like to solve this problem, I'd appreciate a hand on this. We know Pluto's mass and gravity, we know the density of nitrogen at these temperatures and we know the density of water ice. With this info someone could calculate the buoyancy of Ice floating on nitrogen at Pluto's gravity and subsequently figure out the least amount of depth found at this area.
This is where some calculations would be nice. I can only guesstimate that the fluid is at least two to four miles deep and could be deeper at this location. If there are any smart scientists out there that would like to solve this problem, I'd appreciate a hand on this. We know Pluto's mass and gravity, we know the density of nitrogen at these temperatures and we know the density of water ice. With this info someone could calculate the buoyancy of Ice floating on nitrogen at Pluto's gravity and subsequently figure out the least amount of depth found at this area.
Without the math skills required to work this out, I simply have to guesstimate and that leaves me with a wide range somewhere between 2-4 miles perhaps deeper.
Understanding Sputnik Planitia's depth is important for two reasons. It helps us determine whether or not SP is an impact site but also helps us understand the subsurface structure, which helps reveal more of the Pluto story. I've explained this in more detail on Page 50
On the surface of SP's nitrogen, are polygonal cellular mounds bounded by troughs. These troughs give a rough outline of fractures below the surface. At the southern tip of SP these troughs disappear and the surface becomes smooth over a very large area. In the below image I have drawn blue lines on top of the troughs in the northern portion. As we travel south, the troughs disappear strongly suggesting this area is a vast deep pit. I've outlined in red and yellow the area that is missing troughs. This area incorporates Norgay Montes suggesting the depth is at least 2 to 4 miles deep at this location. It could easily be deeper.
This information gives pretty conclusive evidence SP is not an impact site.
How?
Understanding Sputnik Planitia's depth is important for two reasons. It helps us determine whether or not SP is an impact site but also helps us understand the subsurface structure, which helps reveal more of the Pluto story. I've explained this in more detail on Page 50
On the surface of SP's nitrogen, are polygonal cellular mounds bounded by troughs. These troughs give a rough outline of fractures below the surface. At the southern tip of SP these troughs disappear and the surface becomes smooth over a very large area. In the below image I have drawn blue lines on top of the troughs in the northern portion. As we travel south, the troughs disappear strongly suggesting this area is a vast deep pit. I've outlined in red and yellow the area that is missing troughs. This area incorporates Norgay Montes suggesting the depth is at least 2 to 4 miles deep at this location. It could easily be deeper.
This information gives pretty conclusive evidence SP is not an impact site.
How?
Bill McKinnon used this next image in a presentation during his lecture at the LPSC conference in Texas in March of 2016 to demonstrate how SP is an impact site. He even indicates the direction of the impact with an arrow and uses a big circular hole on Mars called Hellas basin to show how a round impact looks on Mars. (video of Bill's lecture below)
OK so now you see a big round basin on Mars and a big red elliptic circle overlaid on Pluto's SP basin. It is drawn to incorporate the icebergs along the north and western portions of SP but it doesn't include the deepest part of SP at the south. The Hellas basin image is an elevation map the blue area is the deepest portion of damage caused by the impact.
|
This is what a more accurate representation of the SP basin would look like and even this doesn't really tell the story as the deepest section is in the south where it is smallest.
The large diameter circle that Bill outlined is the shallowest area of SP to understand this we need a way of seeing below the surface and using the height of the icebergs allows us to do this. Drawing a big circle in the middle of SP manipulates your eyes to see only what you are expected to see, a big circle but that's not what SP is. Open your eyes and see what is actually there and you will notice it doesn't look like a big impact basin like Hellas on Mars. By drawing this big circled area and associating it with Hellas, your mind imprints this image as a round deep impact site. |
During Bill's lecture he suggested SP is an impact site, a message that has wormed it's way into nearly every science paper and article written since he proposed this idea.
Next Bill shows this series of 3 different impacts occurring at oblique angles of 20, 10 and 5 degrees.
Notice how readily your eye is drawn to the first impact at 20 degrees, it has a nearly identical shape to Hellas and the circular area outlined by Bill in SP. The primary difference is the deepest area of damage at Hellas and the 20 degree impact is located where the diameter is largest whereas at SP the largest area is the shallowest while the smallest is the deepest.
Next Bill shows this series of 3 different impacts occurring at oblique angles of 20, 10 and 5 degrees.
Notice how readily your eye is drawn to the first impact at 20 degrees, it has a nearly identical shape to Hellas and the circular area outlined by Bill in SP. The primary difference is the deepest area of damage at Hellas and the 20 degree impact is located where the diameter is largest whereas at SP the largest area is the shallowest while the smallest is the deepest.
|
Why show a round impact with an angle of 20 degrees if it isn't part of your impact theory premise? Why, because it shows the shape needed to associate it with SP but its ejecta blanket presents a conflict with observational evidence.
|
|
|
The importance of the 5 degree impact angle comes into play because there is no ejecta blanket anywhere around SP so this 5 degree strike angle is used by Bill to suggest all the ejecta traveled south into the shadows where we can't see it.
|
By showing pictures that emphasize a large circular 20 degree hit but talking about a 5 degree impact you are subconsciously accepting a visual circular representation of facts while hearing and accepting an explanation describing an impact angle of 5 degrees super imposing the two over each other. Bill shows 3 images with circles or circular patterns. He draws one around SP, he shows Hellas then he shows an impact of 20 degrees. Yet he says a 5 degree impact angle was responsible for creating SP (a carrot shaped impact).
If the impact occurred at 5 degrees, as Bill suggest, SP would not look like it does instead it would look more like a carrot shape.
If the impact occurred at 5 degrees, as Bill suggest, SP would not look like it does instead it would look more like a carrot shape.
|
Even if an impactor came in at a 5 degree angle there would still have been ejecta material off to the sides as seen in this middle image the blue is where the impact took place and the red spray pattern is the ejecta. Ejecta still sprays out to the sides with a 5 degree hit.
|
|
|
|
The missing ejecta is a significant problem for this impact theory. To my knowledge I'm the only one that has identified the pit in the south that's why this depth concept hasn't been addressed.
To his credit, when Bill was asked (2hrs 27min 30sec) in this video about the missing ejecta blanket, he admitted there was none, He did, however, proceed to perform a bit of a tap dance during this admission. You may wish to read the slight of hand page 57 as it relates to this. |
In advertising similar method's are employed, here's an example of slight of hand advertising.
I created this collage of images.
Peruse them for a couple seconds as there will be a quiz.
I created this collage of images.
Peruse them for a couple seconds as there will be a quiz.
|
I just love the patriotic U.S. color scheme of red white and blue displayed in these toothpaste brands. I feel like I'm a patriot serving my country by using these products.
Quiz time After seeing those adds, let me ask you a question. How much toothpaste should you or your children place on a toothbrush before brushing? |
|
On the back of a toothpaste box are listed the ingredients and for the moment, I'm going to ignore the most obvious hazardous ingredient called "Sodium Fluoride" which is simply listed as an Active Ingredient and it's also found under the most boldly printed text on this side of the package Drug Facts (what a laugh) as if fluoride is a drug. Sodium fluoride, almost sounds like regular old table salt it couldn't possibly be bad for you, could it?
In the below image you will find two significant pieces of information about toothpaste.
Directions & Warnings.
Directions - for children 2-6 years, use only a pea sized amount (notice the deception? It doesn't say pea pod sized amount). They inundate you with pictures of large lines of toothpaste looking like fresh ice cream from a Dairy Queen machine while saying something else. Similar to what Bill McKinnon did.
Warnings - Keep out of reach of children under 6 years. If more than a pea sized amount is swallowed get medical help or call the local Poison Control Center right away as you have just been poisoned by some really super nasty neurotoxic waste product called FLUORIDE.
In the below image you will find two significant pieces of information about toothpaste.
Directions & Warnings.
Directions - for children 2-6 years, use only a pea sized amount (notice the deception? It doesn't say pea pod sized amount). They inundate you with pictures of large lines of toothpaste looking like fresh ice cream from a Dairy Queen machine while saying something else. Similar to what Bill McKinnon did.
Warnings - Keep out of reach of children under 6 years. If more than a pea sized amount is swallowed get medical help or call the local Poison Control Center right away as you have just been poisoned by some really super nasty neurotoxic waste product called FLUORIDE.
|
WHAT? Wait a minute, are they saying fluoride is so poisonous that a pea sized amount in a tube of toothpaste if ingested requires a call to the the Poison Control Center? YES!!!
Does it matter how much toothpaste you use? Yes! When a pea sized amount could put you in a Poison Control Center then quintupling it could really be harmful. All the advertising images show more than a pea sized amount, This subliminal form of advertising visually suggests you should place a large line of toothpaste on a toothbrush and most people do as they are shown not as they are instructed, primarily because the instructions are subdued with small blue letters on a blue/grey background while the deceptive images are boldly displayed. |
|
Fluoride occurs naturally but man made large dose quantities of fluoride was originally a neurotoxic waste byproduct from building atomic bombs but more recently it is sourced as a waste product from fertilizer plants. Remember the OK City Bombing? Timothy McVeigh, he used fertilizer in a rental truck to create his bomb. These chemical compounds are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry and can even contain traces of lead, arsenic and mercury. Fluoride is also used in pesticides and antidepressant medications.
The theoretical safe amount of fluoride was once considered to be 1 part per million (PPM) today it's been raised to 4 ppm. Toothpaste has between 900 and 1,100 ppm. Your skin is your largest organ and it absorbs fluoride poison through your mouth when you brush and the shower water when you bath. The vapor you breath in the shower theoretically has 4 ppm in it. Children are considered at risk at 2 ppm. All the foods you eat that have been cooked in water contain fluoride. Doctors prescibe pills of flouride for children
the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports
US Kids Fluoride Overdosed: Gov't Report Reveals
American Children are Fluoride Overdosed - Cavities Increase in
Primary Teeth: Gov't ReportNew York - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 1/3 of six to nineteen year-olds are fluoride overdosed and display dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted or crumbly teeth. While, tooth decay increased in primary teeth of two - five-year-olds.
When the questionable category of fluorosis is included, as it was in 1945, the report is more dire:
40% of 6-11-year-olds have fluorosis
49% of 12-15 year-olds have fluorosis
42% of 16-19-year-olds have fluorosis
The New York Times reports, "Dr. Burton L. Edelstein, a professor of clinical dentistry at Columbia University...said, 'the dramatic finding for young kids is that caries increased 15 percent between the two periods...According to Dr. Edelstein, the best predictor of cavities in permanent teeth is the number of cavities in baby teeth. If this holds true, the next generation of adolescents could see a significant decline in dental health."
Today, about 70% of US public water supplies are fluoridated and dental crises still exist in fluoridated cities.(D) In 1945, dentists
projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form - white spots. But now, according to the CDC, not only do children and adolescents suffer from fluoride overdose at rates three to four times over the 1945 projection, but 4% is severe fluorosis - yellow or brown stained and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than healthy dentition.
Most US citizens have very mild to mild dental fluorosis. You probably have it yourself if you live in the U.S. go look in the mirror at your teeth if you see little white blotches you've had very mild dental fluorosis poisoning. Not only is this neurotoxic poison found in toothpaste but the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also puts it in your drinking water. Dr. Mercola has a very nice report on the fluoride neurotoxin overdose in America thanks to the DHHS. Most communities in the U.S. have this neurotoxin added to their drinking water see more here. Here's fifty reasons to oppose fluoridation.
The theoretical safe amount of fluoride was once considered to be 1 part per million (PPM) today it's been raised to 4 ppm. Toothpaste has between 900 and 1,100 ppm. Your skin is your largest organ and it absorbs fluoride poison through your mouth when you brush and the shower water when you bath. The vapor you breath in the shower theoretically has 4 ppm in it. Children are considered at risk at 2 ppm. All the foods you eat that have been cooked in water contain fluoride. Doctors prescibe pills of flouride for children
the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports
US Kids Fluoride Overdosed: Gov't Report Reveals
American Children are Fluoride Overdosed - Cavities Increase in
Primary Teeth: Gov't ReportNew York - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 1/3 of six to nineteen year-olds are fluoride overdosed and display dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted or crumbly teeth. While, tooth decay increased in primary teeth of two - five-year-olds.
When the questionable category of fluorosis is included, as it was in 1945, the report is more dire:
40% of 6-11-year-olds have fluorosis
49% of 12-15 year-olds have fluorosis
42% of 16-19-year-olds have fluorosis
The New York Times reports, "Dr. Burton L. Edelstein, a professor of clinical dentistry at Columbia University...said, 'the dramatic finding for young kids is that caries increased 15 percent between the two periods...According to Dr. Edelstein, the best predictor of cavities in permanent teeth is the number of cavities in baby teeth. If this holds true, the next generation of adolescents could see a significant decline in dental health."
Today, about 70% of US public water supplies are fluoridated and dental crises still exist in fluoridated cities.(D) In 1945, dentists
projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form - white spots. But now, according to the CDC, not only do children and adolescents suffer from fluoride overdose at rates three to four times over the 1945 projection, but 4% is severe fluorosis - yellow or brown stained and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than healthy dentition.
Most US citizens have very mild to mild dental fluorosis. You probably have it yourself if you live in the U.S. go look in the mirror at your teeth if you see little white blotches you've had very mild dental fluorosis poisoning. Not only is this neurotoxic poison found in toothpaste but the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also puts it in your drinking water. Dr. Mercola has a very nice report on the fluoride neurotoxin overdose in America thanks to the DHHS. Most communities in the U.S. have this neurotoxin added to their drinking water see more here. Here's fifty reasons to oppose fluoridation.
|
Poison Peddlers
These suppliers of neurotoxic fluoride waste not only place this poison in your child's hands and makes it taste like bubble gum but then subliminally deceive you into using it in dangerous quantities.
While they show you smiling happy faces with bright teeth and pea pod sized lines of paste on the front of the package with bright contrasting colors of RED WHITE and BLUE, on the back of the box in small print with muddled gray and blue they explain how much to use and warn you about contacting a poison control center. 
Tom's sells non fluoridated toothpaste at Wholefoods.
|
|
If you're interested in learning more on how you've been deceived about fluoride's dangers. Watch this video. This is skeletal fluorosis. 
|
|
The smoking tooth video below shows how mercury mixed with silver aka amalgam tooth fillings releases mercury vapors in your mouth every single time you chew something or drink something hot.
|
|
Next time you are at the dentist look around for a trash can with a red bag labeled HAZARDOUS WASTE. It's required by law that the dentist receive, handle and dispose of this toxic dangerous mercury as a hazardous product.
Your dentist must handle amalgam fillings as a HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL, while inserting it in your mouth but when its in your mouth miraculously it's no longer hazardous but take it out and it becomes hazardous again. WHAT? |
|
This video by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) shows the direct connection between mercury vapor from amalgam fillings and Alzheimer's. IAOMT is a good place to find a local dentist to help with this amalgam fillings mercury issue. |
|
Enough about deception let's get back to Pluto oh that's right it was slight of hand (images in your face with dissimilar words in the ear) that led us here wasn't it?
There is a second and equally important aspect to what the deep pit at the southern tip of SP suggest.
There is a second and equally important aspect to what the deep pit at the southern tip of SP suggest.
Something's missing from this southern point of SP and it's roughly in the shape of a giant angular "V". its the area outlined in read and yellow. The red line is where there are no troughs due to depth and the yellow is where Norgay Montes with 2 mile high icebergs are floating in 2-4 mile deep fluid.
This is basically an angular shaped void below the surface of Sputnik Planitia's nitrogen fluid indicating large chunks of fractured angular crustal ice are missing. If this were an impact site from a direct hit there would be circular patterns at this location not angular patterns, the deepest damage from a large impactor would be in the north where we see the largest diameter but the northern area is the shallowest and there would be an ejecta blanket. None of these conditions exist. These floating icebergs, missing troughs and missing ejecta blanket along with other information (see Page 50) leads me to conclude Sputnik Planitia is not an impact site.
Why does that matter?
Consider this question.
Where are those missing chunks of crustal land ice?
Did they get sucked in or spit out?
Next, addressing some acne.
This is basically an angular shaped void below the surface of Sputnik Planitia's nitrogen fluid indicating large chunks of fractured angular crustal ice are missing. If this were an impact site from a direct hit there would be circular patterns at this location not angular patterns, the deepest damage from a large impactor would be in the north where we see the largest diameter but the northern area is the shallowest and there would be an ejecta blanket. None of these conditions exist. These floating icebergs, missing troughs and missing ejecta blanket along with other information (see Page 50) leads me to conclude Sputnik Planitia is not an impact site.
Why does that matter?
Consider this question.
Where are those missing chunks of crustal land ice?
Did they get sucked in or spit out?
Next, addressing some acne.
