March 31st, 2017
The other day I tweeted Alan Stern to ask a question about the age of Pluto's moons, the conversation went like this.
|
This is not correct. The surfaces are young. That doesn't mean the moons are.
Just as there is fresh snow on an old Earth. |
|
How does non renewable ammonia hydrates still exist on the surface of geologically inactive bodies after 4Gyr?
The earth has an atmosphere #Pluto's moons don't, where does this young surfaced ammonia come from? |
|
Good question, somehow it must be produced recently on the surface.
|
|
Thank you for the reply.
Only other logical alternative I can think of is that the moons aren't that old. |
|
Good thought but ruled out!
We age date the surfaces of Charon and Nix from crater counts. They are 3-4 billion years old. |
I then decided, I needed to learn more about how this impact crater counting method worked so I could determine the strength of it's validity. I needed to know if the concept of youthful moons was in fact "ruled out".
I am not a scientist and there is much about age dating via counting craters I don't understand but the parts I think I do understand follow. I read the NASA released paper called "The Small Satellites of Pluto as Observed by New Horizons" April 18th, 2016
In this paper (I'll call it SS for small satellites) NASA scientists describe how they concluded the small moons of Pluto are 4 billion years old.
I am not a scientist and there is much about age dating via counting craters I don't understand but the parts I think I do understand follow. I read the NASA released paper called "The Small Satellites of Pluto as Observed by New Horizons" April 18th, 2016
In this paper (I'll call it SS for small satellites) NASA scientists describe how they concluded the small moons of Pluto are 4 billion years old.
|
Since creating this page, I reached out to planetary scientists via twitter and email, most are coauthors on the SS paper.
April 7th, 2017 I asked each of the scientists to read this page and critique it looking for any scientific errors. I indicated I would gladly remove any errors found. If I am wrong, I do not want to spread false information. I have heard back from one scientist and have edited some of the content off this page and will continue to do so if needed. |
|
Some scientists have indicated that crater identification and measurement is far from an objective process in that there are inherent variations in the identification and crater size assessment process. While one person see's one thing another does not and this then opens the door for misinterpretation of data and crater diameter esitmates. Another area of subjectivity is determining the actual size of various craters. This is why an overlapping process was used and all the data then run through one person to help remove some of this misinterpretation. Even with this precaution exercised by NASA, age dating by crater counting is a subjective process and far from objective.
This paper written by S. Greenstreet, B. Gladman and W. McKinnon says
We show that due to the present uncertainties in the impactor size distribution between 1—100 km, computing absolute ages for the surface of Pluto is entirely dependent on the extrapolation to small sizes and thus fraught with uncertainty.
All but 3 craters counted on Pluto, Charon and the small satellites are less than 100 km.
On top of that I'm going to show you how NASA scientists also intentionally altered the chart data to achieve their predetermined and expected age results of 4 byr.
This paper written by S. Greenstreet, B. Gladman and W. McKinnon says
We show that due to the present uncertainties in the impactor size distribution between 1—100 km, computing absolute ages for the surface of Pluto is entirely dependent on the extrapolation to small sizes and thus fraught with uncertainty.
All but 3 craters counted on Pluto, Charon and the small satellites are less than 100 km.
On top of that I'm going to show you how NASA scientists also intentionally altered the chart data to achieve their predetermined and expected age results of 4 byr.
|
In a press conference in March 2016 Kelsi Singer (co-author of the SS paper), explained why they conclude the entire Pluto system is age dated as an ancient event not a recent one.
Two points in the video are used to suggest this system is ancient,
Point 1: When considering circular vs elliptical orbits scientists are naturally only considering captured objects not ejected objects. |
|
Mutually captured objects must approach each other at differing velocities so an eccentric orbital dance must take place before they can settle into circular orbits. Ejected objects simply need the correct ejection velocity and they will enter into a nearly instant circular orbit. Achieving circular orbits is not a difficult process, all that's required is the correct ejection velocity. We do it all the time here on Earth when we launch satellites into orbit. An impact like we see on Charon's north pole at Mordor could have created these conditions.
Here's my best guess answer to point 2.
The escape velocity for Pluto is 1.2 km/s which is 0.7456454 mi/s (2,684 miles per hour). Charon's escape velocity is 0.59 km/s or 0.366609 mi/s (1,320 mph). Pluto takes 90,613.305 Earth days to orbit the Sun and does so at an average speed of 4.666 km/second or 2.899318 mi/s (10,438 mph).
Other Plutino's are all traveling at 10,438 mi/hr and if a collision took place between two of them they could easily generate enough energy to eject material off Pluto or Charon at 2,684 mi/hr or 1,320 mi/hr respectively launching debris into a circular orbit.
The escape velocity of Mars is 11,252 mph four times that of Pluto and yet we have Martian rocks on Earth ejected by impacts. Mars also has two large rocks called moons orbiting it. They are both in very circular orbits around Mars' equator and compositionally similar to Mars making them candidates for being ejected material from Mars after an impact. It is specifically because of their circular orbits and the fact that they orbit around Mars' equator that they are theorized to have been ejected off Mars and it doesn't hurt that they are made of the same stuff. Why would Pluto's small satellites be any different?
Here's my best guess answer to point 2.
The escape velocity for Pluto is 1.2 km/s which is 0.7456454 mi/s (2,684 miles per hour). Charon's escape velocity is 0.59 km/s or 0.366609 mi/s (1,320 mph). Pluto takes 90,613.305 Earth days to orbit the Sun and does so at an average speed of 4.666 km/second or 2.899318 mi/s (10,438 mph).
Other Plutino's are all traveling at 10,438 mi/hr and if a collision took place between two of them they could easily generate enough energy to eject material off Pluto or Charon at 2,684 mi/hr or 1,320 mi/hr respectively launching debris into a circular orbit.
The escape velocity of Mars is 11,252 mph four times that of Pluto and yet we have Martian rocks on Earth ejected by impacts. Mars also has two large rocks called moons orbiting it. They are both in very circular orbits around Mars' equator and compositionally similar to Mars making them candidates for being ejected material from Mars after an impact. It is specifically because of their circular orbits and the fact that they orbit around Mars' equator that they are theorized to have been ejected off Mars and it doesn't hurt that they are made of the same stuff. Why would Pluto's small satellites be any different?
|
Pluto and Charon orbit a barycentric point outside both planets, this means their combined gravitational equator is pretty much the outside orbital ring of Charon. This, in essence, creates an extremely distorted co-equatorial gravitational bulge compared to their collective heights.
Objects ejected from both bodies would either escape easily into space or get captured in this equatorial zone. The small moons are ejected objects that got captured in this equatorial gravity zone during the Mordor impact that blasted chunks off Charon. |
|
Its not like you can just look at Pluto and say it's equator is the controlling factor in capturing ejected objects, their combined orbits and mass act as a gravitational capture mechanism elongating their collective gravitational bulge.
Their equatorial gravity field probably looks much like a Frisbee, anything that gets near it gets caught in it. Around Earth there are estimated to be millions of space junk debris most of which is collected around the equator. I checked with a smart person and they don't think this Frisbee theory has legs so it may not its just a thought take it with a grain of salt. |
|
Bottom line is that objects ejected off planets at the correct velocity will rapidly enter into circular orbits around the strongest gravitational area of influence, the equator. This is not evidence of a 4 billion year old process as we have placed hundreds of thousands of objects in orbit around Earth within the last 55 years.
In the above video Kelsi Singer uses a chart to demonstrate how all the impacts line up on a diagonal line in proximity to the 4 Ga yellow line.
The alignment of 4 red and 2 pink diamonds along a diagonal yellow line are used to present the idea of crater diameter and impact frequency confirm this system's 4 byr age.
The SS paper from which the chart's data is created also shows these images of Nix with 11 impacts viewed by the MVIC camera and 5 by the LORRI camera. Hydra is shown with only 3 impacts with a less resolved image, Kerberos and Styx were not included as their resolutions were too blurry. These 11 yellow dots and numbers are the 11 red diamonds, 5 pink duplicate diamonds and 3 blue triangles utilized in creating the data points in the SS paper's white charts (below) from which Kelsi's black graph (below) was constructed.
In the above video Kelsi Singer uses a chart to demonstrate how all the impacts line up on a diagonal line in proximity to the 4 Ga yellow line.
The alignment of 4 red and 2 pink diamonds along a diagonal yellow line are used to present the idea of crater diameter and impact frequency confirm this system's 4 byr age.
The SS paper from which the chart's data is created also shows these images of Nix with 11 impacts viewed by the MVIC camera and 5 by the LORRI camera. Hydra is shown with only 3 impacts with a less resolved image, Kerberos and Styx were not included as their resolutions were too blurry. These 11 yellow dots and numbers are the 11 red diamonds, 5 pink duplicate diamonds and 3 blue triangles utilized in creating the data points in the SS paper's white charts (below) from which Kelsi's black graph (below) was constructed.
Nix imaged by MVIC
|
This is Nix imaged by both the MVIC and LORRI cameras.
<<<<<<<<<<MVIC These are the 11 impacts identified by the MVIC camera (N_MPAN_CA in the white table below) represented by red diamonds in the respective charts. LORRI>>>>>>>>>>> These are the same 1-5 duplicate identified impacts by the LORRI camera. These 5 impacts are the same numbered impacts on the left by MVIC and are represented by pink diamonds in the charts. |
Nix imaged by LORRI
|
|
This table identifies the same duplicate numbered 1-5 impacts on Nix with their relative crater sizes. The LORRI 1-3 impacts on Hydra are also listed |
|
Hydra imaged by LORRI
|
The below black chart used by Kelsi Singer in the press conference (above video) is missing some significant data about the impact counting information that was originally collected by the NASA team. The X axis is the size of the crater while the Y axis is the number of craters per area.
|
Note how there are 4 red, 2 pink & 3 blue diamonds and triangle.
This chart is missing 7 red and 3 pink diamonds. 10 of 19 data points are missing. More than half the data is not represented in this chart. The pink diamonds are not separate individual impacts from what is identified by the MVIC camera (red diamonds) they are duplicate data from a different (LORRI) camera. LORRI is the LOng Range camera. In other words it takes clearer pictures at longer ranges than the MVIC camera. This means LORRI (pink diamonds) gives a clearer more precise image for calculating the diameter of the crater. |
The two pink diamonds are not unique impacts they are identical to two of the red diamond impacts but their position in the chart helps sell the 4 byr age hypothesis so the same crater data is used four times which biases the results in favor of the desired outcome. MVIC with its blurrier image provides larger craters (red diamonds) so their data is shifted more to the right creating the better illusion these are older impacts than the clearer LORRI images. All these data points are also scaled to reflect regolith (more to come) further shifting the data to the right.
The three (3, 4 & 5 pink diamonds) LORRI data points that are missing are all well below the 2 byr old age. Since the two pink diamonds numbered 1 and 2 in the table are the same as the two red diamonds closest to them in the chart and the pink diamonds are from a clearer image, their positions should be given more weight than the red (blurry imaged) diamonds 1 and 2 yet all four are used to sell the idea these impacts suggest Nix's age is greater than 4 byr. MVIC with its blurrier images leaves more room for interpreting the crater diameters as being larger than the LORRI camera.
This is NASA's proof.
Three of the five existing pink diamonds (impacts) and 7 of the 11 red diamonds have been intentionally left off the chart and the data is scaled to reflect regolith not water ice, all of which biases the data toward one line of reasoning and completely away from another, seems a bit manipulative to me. I will show all the missing data points below.
The three (3, 4 & 5 pink diamonds) LORRI data points that are missing are all well below the 2 byr old age. Since the two pink diamonds numbered 1 and 2 in the table are the same as the two red diamonds closest to them in the chart and the pink diamonds are from a clearer image, their positions should be given more weight than the red (blurry imaged) diamonds 1 and 2 yet all four are used to sell the idea these impacts suggest Nix's age is greater than 4 byr. MVIC with its blurrier images leaves more room for interpreting the crater diameters as being larger than the LORRI camera.
This is NASA's proof.
Three of the five existing pink diamonds (impacts) and 7 of the 11 red diamonds have been intentionally left off the chart and the data is scaled to reflect regolith not water ice, all of which biases the data toward one line of reasoning and completely away from another, seems a bit manipulative to me. I will show all the missing data points below.
|
It appears to me as though there are far more impacts on Nix than the 11 yellow dots appear to suggest. Take a moment to look over this image. Look for craters there's lots of them. I've placed red arrows at some but not all the impacts I can find on Nix which are in addition to the 11 used for creating Kelsi's age dating chart. If these additional impacts had been accounted for the data points for Nix's impact's per area or Y axis would have been off the chart, (literally). In this image we only see about a quarter of Nix. Half is on the back side while a little less than half of the viewable side is hidden by shadow. To say there are only 11 impacts on Nix stretches the bounds of reality. To add more impacts stretches the bounds of this dating method. For now lets stay with the idea Nix has 11 impacts. |
Nix HiRes
|
Here's the data presented in the SS paper from which Kelsi's black chart was created.
All white charts came from the NASA "SS" paper titled "The Small Satellites of Pluto as Observed by New Horizons" The black chart used by Kelsi Singer above during the press conference was developed from the charts in this paper. All the impact data points are displayed in this white chart along with 5 additional pink data points (LORRI camera) which are duplicate but more accurate and clearer imaged data. Even though there are only 14 impacts (3-Hydra, 11-Nix) used to create the 4 byr theory, 19 are used in this chart because two camera's captured the same info twice on 5 of the larger impacts (pink diamonds). In this chart you can see all the data points used by NASA scientists to conclude the moons are 4 billion years old (upper left corner says "Not Scaled"). The crater diameter scale (horizontal X axis) in Kelsi's black chart runs from 1 km to 100 km whereas the white chart's crater diameter range is from 0.1 km to 1000 km. |
|
In the SS paper there is only one yellow 4 byr diagonal line created as an age indicator it's the same yellow line found in Kelsi's chart.
The yellow line indicates the Greenstreet et al. prediction for the cumulative density of craters on Pluto’s surface over 4 billion years for their “knee” model.
|
I've added Kelsi's blue & purple lines on this chart to give an apple's to apple's comparison.
My diagonal lines appear steeper because the crater size scale is larger on this chart (0.1 km to 1000 km). The omitted 3 pink diamonds from Kelsi's chart sit below the 2 byr line, this is probably why they were not included on Kelsi's black chart. Notice how this chart's right two pink diamonds are both below the yellow 4 byr line, whereas in Kelsi's chart they are shifted further to the right, that's because Kelsi's pink diamonds have been scaled by 2.1 or shifted to the right to reflect regolith not water ice at 2.6. More on scaling in a minute but take note of how this chart says "Scaled by 2.6" in the upper left corner. Note how the black dots (Pluto) data points are primarily on or below the yellow 4 billion year line. I would guestimate about half of the black data points are below 4 byr, some are well below the 2 byr line. |
One obvious fact is the smaller the impact crater diameter the more it tends to shift to the left toward a younger age bracket. This is likely why only eleven of the largest impacts were used on Nix. Many of the smaller impacts would have pushed the data further to the left which is the wrong direction if you want the moons to support a previously determined conclusion about the age of the small satellites being 4 byr. Also take notice of how the upper most or smaller craters on Charon (green squares) form a curve to the left just like the smaller black Pluto impacts. In Kelsi's black chart she completely removes this curve of green squares.
Back to scaling.
It seems a bit more than coincidental that 5 data points (blues, pinks) in Kelsi's chart would get shifted (scaled) in favor of supporting the 4 byr concept.
In the SS paper's data (white) charts, seven of the red, all the pink and all the blue diamonds sit well below or at the 3 byr line. This appears to be why they were absent from Kelsi's black chart as these data points indicate Nix and Hydra are far younger than 3 byr based on NASA's crater dating method. Only 4 red diamonds sit close to or right of the 4 byr line, the other 15 data points indicate these moons are younger than 4 byr.
There are other significant pitfalls with this age dating method.
To estimate the age based on crater's you need to know the mass, gravity, density and material from which the body is constructed so that the data can be scaled to align with those parameters.
The SS paper has this to say
Nix and Hydra both exhibit slightly higher crater densities than Pluto and Charon, implying a surface age ≳4 Ga
According to the vertical Y axis data, this then suggests the small moons are older than Pluto/Charon. How could the moons created from a Pluto/Charon impact have a surface that indicates they are older than their parent planets? While at the same time having an albedo that suggests they are younger than any other body in the Plutino zone.
The SS paper also says this about our knowledge as it relates to the density and mass variables of the moons.
Large uncertainties in the masses of the small moons (up to ~100%), as well as significant uncertainties in their volumes, precludes determining accurate values for their densities at this time (densities of 0 (zero) are within the current error estimates). However, the New Horizons results on Kerberos clearly demonstrate that the current dynamical estimate for its mass is an overestimate, possibly by a factor of ~100.
I hope you fully appreciate what they are saying in that statement. If I understand it correctly, there is an uncertainty factor of the small moon's mass' by as much as 100% . Densities of zero are within their current error estimates. I could stop right here. Without this information scaling the impact data on the charts to align with mass, gravity and density is a complete crap shoot. In essence any value needed could be used to scale this data as calculating their mass appears to be 100% guesswork.
This chart from the SS paper is a non scaled chart. That means the crater's diameter's were simply plotted without accounting for the mass or gravitational affect of the small moons or their composition. These are the data points listed in the table above.
Nix and Hydra both exhibit slightly higher crater densities than Pluto and Charon, implying a surface age ≳4 Ga
According to the vertical Y axis data, this then suggests the small moons are older than Pluto/Charon. How could the moons created from a Pluto/Charon impact have a surface that indicates they are older than their parent planets? While at the same time having an albedo that suggests they are younger than any other body in the Plutino zone.
The SS paper also says this about our knowledge as it relates to the density and mass variables of the moons.
Large uncertainties in the masses of the small moons (up to ~100%), as well as significant uncertainties in their volumes, precludes determining accurate values for their densities at this time (densities of 0 (zero) are within the current error estimates). However, the New Horizons results on Kerberos clearly demonstrate that the current dynamical estimate for its mass is an overestimate, possibly by a factor of ~100.
I hope you fully appreciate what they are saying in that statement. If I understand it correctly, there is an uncertainty factor of the small moon's mass' by as much as 100% . Densities of zero are within their current error estimates. I could stop right here. Without this information scaling the impact data on the charts to align with mass, gravity and density is a complete crap shoot. In essence any value needed could be used to scale this data as calculating their mass appears to be 100% guesswork.
This chart from the SS paper is a non scaled chart. That means the crater's diameter's were simply plotted without accounting for the mass or gravitational affect of the small moons or their composition. These are the data points listed in the table above.
|
To get the data to fit expectations it needed to be adjusted or scaled to compensate for their mass and density.
The two choices (expressed in the paper) for the moon's composition were water ice or regolith (powdered dust as seen on Earth's moon). NASA scientists' chose to use both which seems strange to me considering the info collected by their reflectance data shows Nix to be closely related to water ice not regolith and Hydras closely related to Charon which is considered to be mostly water ice. Spectroscopically Nix and Hydra's surfaces are crystallized water ice. 
|
|
Quote from the SS paper
By analogy with Charon, which is covered in H2O ice but not massive enough to retain more volatile ices (e.g., N2, CH4, CO, etc.) over the age of the Solar System, we propose it is likely that the surfaces of Pluto’s small moons are also covered with H2O ice. 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.
By analogy with Charon, which is covered in H2O ice but not massive enough to retain more volatile ices (e.g., N2, CH4, CO, etc.) over the age of the Solar System, we propose it is likely that the surfaces of Pluto’s small moons are also covered with H2O ice. 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.
|
This statement posses another question.
It is noted that the mass of Charon is not enough to retain the volatile ices which on Pluto make it possible to create tholins. If mass is a requirement for tholin creation how do small objects like the one that impacted Nix which produced its red crater zit obtain their tholin? How did the 30 mile sized object 1994 JR1 become red? Also based on Robin Canup's collision model both bodies had to be uniform not partially differentiated to remain separate bodies during the theoretical impact. |
|
If tholins are only produced on planets large enough to retain the volatile ices N2, CH4, CO, then these small impactor's less than 30 miles must be chunks of debris from larger planets which took time to grow large enough to retain the volatile ices then spend more time producing tholin then some time later somehow create ejected chunks which were ejected into the same orbital path as Nix which then later had to impact Nix.
All of this took place (supposedly) in the first 500 million years of our solar systems formation? But in the last 4 byr these moons have just been sitting around quietly, no more impacts, nothing happening, everything took place within the first 0.5 byr then the system went dormant.
I digress, back to the icy (not regolith) moons.
All of this took place (supposedly) in the first 500 million years of our solar systems formation? But in the last 4 byr these moons have just been sitting around quietly, no more impacts, nothing happening, everything took place within the first 0.5 byr then the system went dormant.
I digress, back to the icy (not regolith) moons.
NASA web site quote related to the above image
The new data show the surface of Hydra, Pluto’s outermost small moon, is dominated by nearly pristine water ice – confirming hints that scientists picked up in New Horizons images showing Hydra’s highly reflective surface... The new data – known as infrared spectra – show the unmistakable signature of crystalline water ice:
Crystalline water ice will become amorphous within 100 thousand years. Meaning, if the surfaces of these small moons were older than 100 thousand years the water ice surface would be amorphous not crystalline.
Bill McKinnon at the 47th LPSC 2016 showed this below graphic of the albedo of the small moons of Pluto and said we infer water-ice (rubble) dominated compositions.
The new data show the surface of Hydra, Pluto’s outermost small moon, is dominated by nearly pristine water ice – confirming hints that scientists picked up in New Horizons images showing Hydra’s highly reflective surface... The new data – known as infrared spectra – show the unmistakable signature of crystalline water ice:
Crystalline water ice will become amorphous within 100 thousand years. Meaning, if the surfaces of these small moons were older than 100 thousand years the water ice surface would be amorphous not crystalline.
Bill McKinnon at the 47th LPSC 2016 showed this below graphic of the albedo of the small moons of Pluto and said we infer water-ice (rubble) dominated compositions.
|
Wiki quote
Initial predictions envisioned Kerberos as a relatively large and massive object whose dark surface led to it having a faint reflection. This proved to be wrong as images obtained by New Horizons on July 14 and sent back to Earth in October 2015 revealed an object just 8 km (5.0 mi) across with a highly reflective surface suggesting the presence of relatively clean water ice. Quote from Universe Today Article Astronomers rank an object’s reflectivity by its albedo (al-BEE-do). A body that reflects 100% of the light is said to have an albedo of 1.0. Venus’ albedo is .75 and reflects 75% of the light it receives from the sun, while the darker Earth’s average is 30%. Trees and the darker-toned continents reflect much less light compared to Venus’ pervasive cloud cover. In contrast, the coal-dark moon reflects only 12% of the sunlight falling on it and fresh asphalt just 4% – smack in the middle of the 2-6% range of most known comets. Comet 67p has a reflectance or albedo of 0.06 (6%) comparable to charcoal and is really dark because of all the regolith on its surface its covered in 8 inches of dark dust or regolith. Nix has an albedo of .56 (56% reflected light) and Hydra .83 (83%), indicating they are not covered in regolith. The below image shows a comparison of how dark comet 67p is relative to Enceladus, Earth and our Moon |
Albedo chart comparing Pluto moons brightness to other Plutinos
|
If one is to believe these small moons of Pluto are 4 byr old or more then it becomes a necessity to explain away their highly reflective albedos since dust and cosmic radiation over time will darken the small dead moons to between 2-6% reflectance values and these two moons are far from that. All other Plutino's in the general area are between 5 and 15% reflective while Pluto's small satellites are between 56% and 83% reflective. In spite of knowing these facts NASA scientists used regolith to scale their chart's data.
Statements from various scientists and papers including many of those scientists whose names are on this SS paper.
Quote From NASA site on May 5th 2016 just a few days after Kelsi Singer displayed her falsified black chart.
Hydra’s deep water bands and high reflectance imply relatively little contamination by darker material that has accumulated on Charon's surface over time. Mission scientists are investigating why Hydra’s ice seems to be cleaner than Charon’s. "Perhaps micrometeorite impacts continually refresh the surface of Hydra by blasting off contaminants,” said Simon Porter, a New Horizons science team member
Quote
The new data show the surface of Hydra, Pluto’s outermost small moon, is dominated by nearly pristine water ice
Quote
Interplanetary dust bombardment may anneal water ice on the surfaces of Charon and the smaller satellites, helping to explain the presence of crystalline water ice
Quote
The surfaces of Nix and Hydra are coated with nearly pristine crystalline water ice, despite having crater retention ages greater than 4 billion years.
Quote
Nix and Hydra have high albedos suggestive of H2O-ice covered surfaces.
Statements within the SS paper
Quote
All four moons have high albedos (~50-90%) suggestive of a water-ice surface composition.
and
Nix and Hydra crater sizes are scaled downward by a factor of 2.1 (appropriate for porous regolith-type material)
and
Perhaps Hydra’s surface is icier than Nix’s, which might explain both its higher albedo and bluer color.
and
we propose it is likely that the surfaces of Pluto’s small moons are also covered with H2O ice
and
The presence of a distinctly different layer of material uncovered and/or deposited by the impact on Nix demonstrates that these bodies possess regoliths. The New Horizons measurements suggest that regolith sharing between the small moons and Charon is less extensive than previously thought. (this is their best argument for the presence of regolith and its weak)
and
The small satellites of the Pluto system (Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra) have very low surface escape velocities, and impacts should therefore eject a large amount of material from their surfaces (again, they are trying to explain the presence of pristine water ice by micrometeorite impacts)
and
...the disk-integrated brightness measurements of Nix and Hydra... suggested that Nix and Hydra are relatively small, icy satellites.
While these SS paper (purple text) quotes contradict each other the facts don't. Nix and Hydra's infrared spectra and albedo's clearly indicate their surfaces are made of pristine water ice. In spite of the obvious fact Nix and Hydra's surfaces are crystallized water ice, they choose to scale half their chart data with regolith. Kelsi Singer scaled all her chart's data with regolith.
Quote From NASA site on May 5th 2016 just a few days after Kelsi Singer displayed her falsified black chart.
Hydra’s deep water bands and high reflectance imply relatively little contamination by darker material that has accumulated on Charon's surface over time. Mission scientists are investigating why Hydra’s ice seems to be cleaner than Charon’s. "Perhaps micrometeorite impacts continually refresh the surface of Hydra by blasting off contaminants,” said Simon Porter, a New Horizons science team member
Quote
The new data show the surface of Hydra, Pluto’s outermost small moon, is dominated by nearly pristine water ice
Quote
Interplanetary dust bombardment may anneal water ice on the surfaces of Charon and the smaller satellites, helping to explain the presence of crystalline water ice
Quote
The surfaces of Nix and Hydra are coated with nearly pristine crystalline water ice, despite having crater retention ages greater than 4 billion years.
Quote
Nix and Hydra have high albedos suggestive of H2O-ice covered surfaces.
Statements within the SS paper
Quote
All four moons have high albedos (~50-90%) suggestive of a water-ice surface composition.
and
Nix and Hydra crater sizes are scaled downward by a factor of 2.1 (appropriate for porous regolith-type material)
and
Perhaps Hydra’s surface is icier than Nix’s, which might explain both its higher albedo and bluer color.
and
we propose it is likely that the surfaces of Pluto’s small moons are also covered with H2O ice
and
The presence of a distinctly different layer of material uncovered and/or deposited by the impact on Nix demonstrates that these bodies possess regoliths. The New Horizons measurements suggest that regolith sharing between the small moons and Charon is less extensive than previously thought. (this is their best argument for the presence of regolith and its weak)
and
The small satellites of the Pluto system (Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra) have very low surface escape velocities, and impacts should therefore eject a large amount of material from their surfaces (again, they are trying to explain the presence of pristine water ice by micrometeorite impacts)
and
...the disk-integrated brightness measurements of Nix and Hydra... suggested that Nix and Hydra are relatively small, icy satellites.
While these SS paper (purple text) quotes contradict each other the facts don't. Nix and Hydra's infrared spectra and albedo's clearly indicate their surfaces are made of pristine water ice. In spite of the obvious fact Nix and Hydra's surfaces are crystallized water ice, they choose to scale half their chart data with regolith. Kelsi Singer scaled all her chart's data with regolith.
|
The scientists whose names are on this SS paper completely ignore their own spectroscopic data which clearly shows Nix and Hydra's surfaces are bright reflective crystalline water ice and instead make this bizarre statement.
These small moons are likely rubble piles, so we choose regolith scaling as the most reasonable material They chose regolith to scale the red diamonds by 2.1 and water ice to scale the other data points by 2.6. |
Regolith on the Moon
|
My guess as to why they chose to scale the craters by 2.1 is, water ice at 30 degrees Kelvin is rock hard and you may have noticed that the smaller impact craters on the charts are all shifted more to the left away from the 4 byr line. Regolith is a soft powdery type substance that would disperse naturally into larger craters than rock hard water ice during an impact. Larger craters in the charts are shifted more to the right and closer to the 4 byr line.
|
Choosing regolith would naturally bias the data more toward the 4 byr line which was desired and expected. Dare I say, demanded?
It really is odd they chose regolith especially when you see images like these where the red tholin covered impactor gouged out a crater on Nix exposing what appears to be white ice along the inside crater wall. NASA focuses on impact ejecta to conclude the entire moon is regolith covered. |
|
Sorry but I'm still 56% to 83% blinded by all that bright white ice.
|
Back to the SS paper. This chart has 11 red diamonds scaled by 2.1 reflecting Nix is composed of regolith. The pink and blue points are scaled by 2.6 reflecting duplicate Nix data and Hydra craters are composed of water ice. The pink diamonds are duplicate data points as two cameras were used on Nix. One camera's (LORRI) resolution was only good enough to see 5 impacts while the other (MVIC) identified 11. To help give a better sense of this data shift, I lined the "Scaled" and "Not Scaled" data on top of each other and drew a blue line vertically down the 1 km crater impact mark. |
|
Look at the blue line and compare the top and bottom red and pink diamond's relationship to that blue line.
This is what the scaling does, it shifts the data for the small moons to the left on this chart consequently setting their respective ages to the desired value. Had they not scaled the data these moons would imply they are 8-10 billion years old. The degree of shift is based on mass and density which we don't know. There's nothing wrong with this scaling process per se, its just another one of those variables that become self deterministic preferential input that can skew the results. I'm not saying there's any reason not to scale the data. I'm pointing out how data is manipulated to create the desired results. Start with a predetermined conclusion and you can make any data match your expectations. Albert Einstein did it with his cosmological constant lambda and NASA is doing it with Pluto. |
|
Red cells in this table correspond to the red diamonds on the charts, pink cells to pink diamonds and blue cells to blue triangles
|
The paper says Nix and Hydra crater sizes are scaled downward by a factor of 2.1 (appropriate for porous regolith-type material) but the white chart has text saying "Scaled by 2.6" which relates to water ice. This discrepancy along with Kelsi shifting her data points confused me as to what was actually happening with these charts and data so I created this table to understand better exactly what was taking place. The SS paper (white charts) used regolith (scaled to 2.1) to place the red diamonds on the chart but used water ice (scaled to 2.6) to place the pink diamonds & blue triangles. Kelsi used regolith (scaled to 2.1) for all her data points. Neither used water ice to scale all the data. Hmm? If water ice had been used to scale the red diamonds, the largest two craters would have fallen on or below the 4 byr line and the next two would have dropped well below the 3 byr line. Had they not used regolith, there would have been no crater's indicating an age for these moons older than 4 byr. This I assume is why both the SS paper and Kelsi used regolith to scale the red diamonds. |
With Kelsi's black chart and the paper's white chart side by side, take note of how many green Charon impact data points are missing from Kelsi's chart. All the green points that fall below the yellow line have been removed along with most of the red and pink diamonds. Also look closely at how the available pink diamonds and blue triangles are are not positioned correctly relative to the diagonal lines as they have been scaled by 2.1 not 2.6. The only visible data available in Kelsi's chart is that data that says what she wants it to say, not the actual data.
Kelsi wasn't satisfied with falsely scaling all the data points so she removed all data that didn't sell her 4 byr hypothesis and I'm supposed to trust this method of age dating the small satellites. This is an example of the worst science practices imaginable, intentionally falsifying data to obtain a predetermined outcome. Look at the two below charts, Kelsi's on the left and the chart from the paper from which her chart was created on the right. Take note of how the upper most green points that dip down to 2 gyr has been removed and how most of the red upper diamonds have been removed and how the upper pink diamonds have been removed.
Kelsi wasn't satisfied with falsely scaling all the data points so she removed all data that didn't sell her 4 byr hypothesis and I'm supposed to trust this method of age dating the small satellites. This is an example of the worst science practices imaginable, intentionally falsifying data to obtain a predetermined outcome. Look at the two below charts, Kelsi's on the left and the chart from the paper from which her chart was created on the right. Take note of how the upper most green points that dip down to 2 gyr has been removed and how most of the red upper diamonds have been removed and how the upper pink diamonds have been removed.
|
|
|
Kelsi Singer calls her falsified data "Proof" of the giant impact theory as well as proving the impact took place over 4 byr ago. Proof - intentional falsified data is now considered proof? The white chart shows "Scaled to 2.6" in the upper left corner, whereas, most of the data points (red diamonds) are scaled to 2.1. This appears to be an exercise in saying we are doing the right thing (scaling with water ice at 2.6) but then plotting most of the data scaled to 2.1 (regolith). This feels very much like the slight of hand maneuver exercised when NASA claimed they saw tholin on the south pole of Charon via Pluto shine then waited four months to release a grainy black and white Pluto shine image. With the degree of precision these papers are written, its hard for me to believe this is accidental. What I decided to do was take Kelsi Singer's chart and remove her 9 data points for Nix and Hydra then place all the data points back onto the chart with the water ice scale of 2.6 instead of the regolith scale of 2.1. This way we can see what these water icy moon crater's age would indicate if these charts were consistent with actual water ice observations. |
|
Only 1 red diamond sits on the 4 billion year yellow line, most of the other crater data points are well below 3 byr or even near or below 2 byr. Three pink data points are well below 2 byr.
I then decided to go a step further and create an average data point for each group. I then finally averaged all 19 data points into one. The average of all 19 points indicates this method of age dating says Nix and Hydra are around 2.65 billion years old. That's assuming this method is reliable which for me is questionable.
I then decided to go a step further and create an average data point for each group. I then finally averaged all 19 data points into one. The average of all 19 points indicates this method of age dating says Nix and Hydra are around 2.65 billion years old. That's assuming this method is reliable which for me is questionable.
Update April, 17th 2017
I sent a copy of this chart to Alan Stern with the following dialog
I sent a copy of this chart to Alan Stern with the following dialog
|
@alanstern Based on NASA data and using water ice to scale the data the small moons of #Pluto appear to be 2.65 Gyr
|
|
Careful, you can’t straight average because the error bars on the small sats [satellites] are bigger than on Charon.
|
|
Confused, I only averaged the data for the small sats [satellites] within their groups, I guess that's why your the scientist and I'm not. Is it wrong?
|
|
There are many subtle effects, our crater counting and surface age compassion [comparison] experts get 3-4B yr old ages, which is ancient.
|
|
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Apparently Alan thought I averaged all the data points but to be clear, I did not include any of the data points for Charon. I only averaged the red diamonds as a group then the pink diamonds as a group then the blue triangles as a group then I averaged all those smaller satellite impacts as a whole group.
I did not include any green data points from Charon. This then should satisfy Alan's concern of cross mixing the Charon data with the small satellites data. If it was a bad practice for me to average all the red, pink and blue impacts then simply ignore that and look at each moon's data individually. The average of the blue diamonds sits just above 2 billion years. The average pink diamonds sits around 2.6 billion years old. The average of the red diamonds sits around 2.85 billion years old. Seems to me then saying the total average of 2.65 billion years is in line with what their correct data implies, not 4 byr. |
|
|
Mr. Stern was 1 of 51 scientists who collaborated on this SS paper. I doubt Mr. Stern or many of the other scientists scrutinized the data points like I did.
One person created the charts and placed boldly on the chart "Scaled to 2.6" which is water ice but then actually scaled 11 of 19 MVIC data points to 2.1 for regolith biasing the data toward 4 billion years. |
|
What astonishes me more than these scientists falsifying data is that they expect the world to believe 3 or 11 impacts can be used as reliable "proof" of a 4 billion year age for these objects and yet they do and the world has bought it hook line an sinker.
Mr. Stern and other scientists within this group were relying on the expertise of those whose particular field of study related to age dating by crater counting.
Consider this scenario.
Ten years prior to our arrival at Pluto, scientists concluded Pluto/Charon collided. About 5 years prior to our arrival we spotted Nix and Hydra concluding they were debris from the assumed collision which took place about 4 byr ago. Long before this paper was created, everyone decided the moons were 4 byr old. Consider further, you've been selected as a scientist to participate in writing a paper on age dating the small satellites of Pluto (significant honor).
You're paycheck stems from counting and age dating moons via impact craters. You must guess at the scaling factor as the density and gravity of the small satellites are unknown. The crater diameter data if scaled by 2.6 for water ice shows the small satellites to be 2.65 byr, however, the crater quantity per area shows the small satellites to be older than the parent bodies with only 19 impacts which is far short of the actual identifiable number of impacts.
The crater diameter data scaled by 2.1 for regolith helps shift the moon's age in favor of the desired outcome closing the gap between crater size and crater quantity per area. If successful at saying "Scaled by 2.6" yet actually using 2.1 in a science paper without being challenged, how much easier would it be to scale all results to 2.1 in a press release? I mean, who's actually checking the results? Career in tact, save face, everyone gets what they want. It's a win, win, win scenario.
Mr. Stern is an incredibly busy man and doesn't have time to check each and every detail contained in these papers (I'm impressed and honored he took the time to dialogue with me). It seems to me, Mr. Stern is trusting his colleagues to accurately present factual information, as he should, and is now convinced, by that trust, the small satellites are older than the data actually indicates.
While, I may have done something incorrect by averaging the data points (I really don't think so), I didn't cross average data from a large body like Charon with the small moons. The individual 2.6 scaled (water ice) data points are properly placed on the chart, I don't understand why averaging these points would be incorrect. Most of the data points fall between 1.5 and 3 byr so to me 2.65 byr seems to be a reasonable average age point that is of course if you trust this method in the first place which I don't, primarily because of the sparse (3, 11) amount of impacts.
Back to my original conversation with Alan Stern.
I said
Thank you for the reply.
Only other logical alternative I can think of is that the moons aren't that old.
Mr. Stern says
Good thought but ruled out!
We age date the surfaces of Charon and Nix from crater counts. They are 3-4 billion years old.
Mr. Stern and other scientists within this group were relying on the expertise of those whose particular field of study related to age dating by crater counting.
Consider this scenario.
Ten years prior to our arrival at Pluto, scientists concluded Pluto/Charon collided. About 5 years prior to our arrival we spotted Nix and Hydra concluding they were debris from the assumed collision which took place about 4 byr ago. Long before this paper was created, everyone decided the moons were 4 byr old. Consider further, you've been selected as a scientist to participate in writing a paper on age dating the small satellites of Pluto (significant honor).
You're paycheck stems from counting and age dating moons via impact craters. You must guess at the scaling factor as the density and gravity of the small satellites are unknown. The crater diameter data if scaled by 2.6 for water ice shows the small satellites to be 2.65 byr, however, the crater quantity per area shows the small satellites to be older than the parent bodies with only 19 impacts which is far short of the actual identifiable number of impacts.
The crater diameter data scaled by 2.1 for regolith helps shift the moon's age in favor of the desired outcome closing the gap between crater size and crater quantity per area. If successful at saying "Scaled by 2.6" yet actually using 2.1 in a science paper without being challenged, how much easier would it be to scale all results to 2.1 in a press release? I mean, who's actually checking the results? Career in tact, save face, everyone gets what they want. It's a win, win, win scenario.
Mr. Stern is an incredibly busy man and doesn't have time to check each and every detail contained in these papers (I'm impressed and honored he took the time to dialogue with me). It seems to me, Mr. Stern is trusting his colleagues to accurately present factual information, as he should, and is now convinced, by that trust, the small satellites are older than the data actually indicates.
While, I may have done something incorrect by averaging the data points (I really don't think so), I didn't cross average data from a large body like Charon with the small moons. The individual 2.6 scaled (water ice) data points are properly placed on the chart, I don't understand why averaging these points would be incorrect. Most of the data points fall between 1.5 and 3 byr so to me 2.65 byr seems to be a reasonable average age point that is of course if you trust this method in the first place which I don't, primarily because of the sparse (3, 11) amount of impacts.
Back to my original conversation with Alan Stern.
I said
Thank you for the reply.
Only other logical alternative I can think of is that the moons aren't that old.
Mr. Stern says
Good thought but ruled out!
We age date the surfaces of Charon and Nix from crater counts. They are 3-4 billion years old.
|
Kelsi Singer's black chart with more than 50% of the data omitted and all of it scaled for regolith, implies the moons are 4 byr old.
The NASA paper indicates the moons are anywhere from 1.5 byr to older than 4 byr but without a diagonal line representing 5 byr I can't tell how much beyond 4 byr. Mr. Stern says the moons are 3-4 byr old, The data scaled for water ice says 2.65 byr But erratic spin, axial alignment (obliquity), reflectance (albedo), spectroscopic data, red tholin impact and ammonia hydrates say less than 20 million years. |
|
These small satellite moons are dead geologically and atmospherically so there is no method for renewing the ammonia hydrates which have been found on the surface by NASA and without a renewable source the Sun's photon's would disassemble all the ammonia hydrates within 20 million years.
Detecting ammonia hydrates is as close to carbon dating as you can get without taking a direct sample. The albedo is another strong indicator of youth. Without a resupply source, the ammonia wouldn't exist if these moons were more than 20 million years old. NASA is saying ammonia hydrates would photodissociate within 20 to 200 million years but Cooper et al 2003 says 20 myr. |
|
NASA indicates Charon's southern surface is old because of all the impacts found there. If Charon exploded under tidal flex pressure and thousands of shards fell back onto the surface this would have littered the slowly hardening southern hemisphere with impacts in a relatively short period. There are lots of angular shards lying all over Charon's southern hemisphere along with thousands of tiny divot like pot holes where bits and pieces fell onto the surface as it was hardening.
Anyone looking at these impact craters on Charon can tell they are not your ordinary looking impacts as many are angular with straight edges. Its as if they were being swallowed by thickening taffy placing the many impacts and the hardening process around the same time frames.
Anyone looking at these impact craters on Charon can tell they are not your ordinary looking impacts as many are angular with straight edges. Its as if they were being swallowed by thickening taffy placing the many impacts and the hardening process around the same time frames.
Some of these impacts display rings or waves emanating outward from the impact site as if the surface wasn't hard during the time of the impact but more like thickening mud. Except for the angular fragments lying around, the impacts look like they took place in a thick freezing putty. This also speaks to the fact that these angular fragments didn't impact with high velocity rather they fell out of a near orbit pulled back onto the surface by Charon's gravity.
|
In this image I was trying to point out how ripples, rings or waves emanate outward from some of the large impacting debris. I did this to show how the surface was still somewhat soft when these objects fell back onto it. But if you look around this image you can see many examples of angular shaped impacts along with angular debris everywhere. To me this is strongly suggestive that Charon exploded under the tidal flexing pressure and possibly by an added force, the impact at Mordor. After the explosion fluid spilled onto the surface and began to harden while orbital debris from the explosion fell back onto the surface. There are hundreds or thousands of small bits and pieces that fell back onto the surface just after the fluid spilled out and was hardening. This increased orbital debris would have skewed the frequency with which impacts resulted. |
Age dating from craters
This paper scales the chart's data to reflect both regolith and water ice biasing the results toward the 4 byr theory.
Here are 4 other reason's I struggle with trusting counting craters as an age dating method.
- The small moon's mass, surface gravity and density are unknown making the scaling process guesswork.
- Kelsi uses only regolith and omitted data to create her chart favoring the 4 byr theory.
- Spectral data clearly shows the moons surfaces are crystallized water ice, the albedo shows their surfaces are young and covered in bright water ice but instead regolith scaling is used to age data these moons.
- Using only water ice scaling on the charts indicates these moons are about 2.65 byr.
- The higher concentration of impacts per area (by this method of dating) infer these moons are older than Pluto and Charon.
- Eleven impacts are assigned to Nix but I count many more at least twice as many and we can't see the back side of Nix.
- Hydra is referred to as a bi-lobe moon but the neck of the two lobes are counted as impacts.
- Counting or measuring craters is a very subjective not objective process.
Here are 4 other reason's I struggle with trusting counting craters as an age dating method.
- Nix and Hydra are about 25-30 miles. If you took a 30 mile circle and moved it over the surface of Pluto or Charon the number of impacts that fall within that circle would alter radically but nowhere on Pluto or Charon would there be more impacts counted per area than on the small moons making the surface of the small moons, based on this method of dating, older than the parent planets.
- An objects location can dictate the number of impacts it experiences. Compare how many impacts an object in the asteroid belt will encounter relative to a Pluto moon 30-40 AU from the sun or an object like Pan sweeping through Saturn's rings.
- If there was a recent ejection of material from Pluto/Charon due to an impact or explosion, the debris would cluster into orbital rings increasing the impact rate within their respective zones. Who knows how long it would take for a binary pair to force these objects into zones while kicking out the rest and just because we didn't image any doesn't mean they aren't there.
- The composition of an object will affect it's rigidity, density and gravity which will alter the appearance and frequency of impacts.
- To use 3 data points for evidence as "proof" of a 4 billion year old process is beyond my ability to accept.
Impact Congestion
The below images show some of the various conditions within which bodies can find themselves and how impacts will vary depending on those conditions. There's debate over the age of Saturn's rings but these moons aren't 4 billion years old they are simply in and out of a zone of congestion which accordingly makes them have a wide variation in their number of impacts.
For all the reasons listed above I have difficulty trusting this method for age dating the small satellites of Pluto and I consider this process far from objective especially in light of how easily the data can be and has been adjusted to favor a desired outcome.
There are simply too many inconsistencies for me.
While Alan Stern may feel age dating the moons at less than 20 Myr is ruled out because of this paper's conclusions, I don't.
Ammonia hydrates found on the surface of the geologically and atmospherically dead moon's of Pluto cannot last more than 20 million years.
This is a fact I trust.
There appears to be no way to explain the ammonia's presence without the moons having been ejected into orbit within that time frame.
Correction, I came up with a theory that one of NASA scientists says is probably valid.
Update
there is another method I had not considered until Alan Stern said he too didn't know how young NH3 was resurfaced on the moons but it must be some how. This got me wondering if there was a method whereby atmospherically and geologically dead moons could get resurfaced after some time and thought I came up with an idea which I presented to New Horizons team member Jason Cook.
I am not a scientist, these NASA people are smart, much smarter than me.
I'm just a blind squirrel trying to find a nut.
Think for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Einstein Quote:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the enemy of truth"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious... whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
There are simply too many inconsistencies for me.
While Alan Stern may feel age dating the moons at less than 20 Myr is ruled out because of this paper's conclusions, I don't.
Ammonia hydrates found on the surface of the geologically and atmospherically dead moon's of Pluto cannot last more than 20 million years.
This is a fact I trust.
There appears to be no way to explain the ammonia's presence without the moons having been ejected into orbit within that time frame.
Correction, I came up with a theory that one of NASA scientists says is probably valid.
Update
there is another method I had not considered until Alan Stern said he too didn't know how young NH3 was resurfaced on the moons but it must be some how. This got me wondering if there was a method whereby atmospherically and geologically dead moons could get resurfaced after some time and thought I came up with an idea which I presented to New Horizons team member Jason Cook.
I am not a scientist, these NASA people are smart, much smarter than me.
I'm just a blind squirrel trying to find a nut.
Think for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Einstein Quote:
"Unthinking respect for authority is the enemy of truth"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious... whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
