Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon

[Scepticalscribe]

I would like to read a response - that is, a thoughtful response, - from you, to the points raised in @Tigger11's posts where the explanations put forward - solar radiation and the pronounced lack of an atmosphere - make a strong case for a complete absence of water - ever - on the surface of the Moon.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Can’t quite believe it is necessary to post this on a forum like MacRumours!

Definition of “Astronomy”:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Define astronomy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=XTazWpjhLs_G8AeJqZuwAg

..... meanwhile .... back to the Earth/Moon formation Accretion Theory controversy ..... an “Astronomy” subject last time I looked .....
[doublepost=1521700274][/doublepost]Jeez ..... what is happening to Free Speech in the West? ..... things are definitely getting worse ..... and this thread isn’t even about SETI .... which normally ‘upsets’ astronomers soooo much they refuse to discuss anything that pops up on the ‘radar’ above a microbial level of intelligence! Debates on the subject also stay well below that level too ..... to ordinary people interested in Astronomy and serious debate ..... it is v.interesting ..... this failure to get ‘down and dirty’ in discussions.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Coming back to the photo for a bit... I've spent quite a bit of time canoeing and rafting in river valleys and canyons over the decades. The comment that side channels don't exist because they arise over the course of time just doesn't hold water (so to speak). Branching begins as soon as the river cuts a channel - water seeks its level.

The canyon increases in width and seems to maintain a similar depth throughout its length. While a channel will become broader if the terrain flattens (as in a river delta), to broaden while maintaining similar depth implies the addition of water along the river's path - side streams that increase overall river flow.

If this had been formed during a cataclysmic event, such as the sudden release of impounded water, there would also likely be side channels as water from the periphery flows towards the lowest part of the basin.

Panspermia jokes aside, to me this looks far more like a fissure than a canyon. Granting that some canyons include fissures/seismic escarpments (like the Palisades of the Hudson River), in the absence of any other evidence of water, I'd suggest that this is a seismic/volcanic fissure. The flat appearance of the bed of the fissure could be due to dust/impact ejecta deposited over the course of time.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Good points.
Most would agree the lack of side channel erosion pretty much confirms this feature wasn't formed by atmospheric water conditions.
(But it’s hard to say the moon NEVER had an atmosphere, some planets we are told, evolved and lost their atmospheres over time as conditions changed …. )

I can half live with the idea this could be a volcanic fissure with a bed fill of dust/impact ejecta deposited over time ….. but would it be that shape along it's length? This feature seems more typical of water-cut valleys on Earth ... and evidence of lava, especially along it's ‘fissure’ edges seems to be absent.
Re: your example of the Hudson River Palisades ….. exposed through weathering admittedly:

Palisades of the Hudson river

Surface volcanic activity on the moon is normally very visible - there being so little erosion. Hence my reservations to your theory.

Also, the main sticking point is the fine inner groove that twists and winds through this 'dust' on this relatively flat bed of fill …. my gut feeling says this secondary cut twists too extremely to be a lava channel in that sort of terrain.

If people can roll with the idea that this wasn't a sudden cataclysmic event, that this huge feature was created over a considerable period of time ….. maybe subsurface volcanic activity created chambers that filled with large amounts of subterranean water ….. recent scans suggest the moon may have huge subsurface reserves of water ….. [which is likely seeing as it's mineral geology is very similar to Earth and recent research says it came from the same 'source'].

….. maybe further subsurface seismic shifts created considerable steady pressure build up in these subterranean chambers pushing things closer to the surface …. a minor impact at the 'head' end may have ruptured one very large chamber reservoir and released a steady stream to create considerable erosion and evapouration ….. dust fill then rolled in and smoothed over time ….. then, after a period of 'dormancy' …. a minor secondary pressure release cut the new groove.

Wonder if this mechanism has happened in a similar way on other planets …. or even Earth?
….. maybe it is a longshot …. but this feature looks pretty unique ….. so maybe unique circumstances created it?

Footnote: One question I would like to ask ..... how were the smoothed raised dunes the rover vehicles/astronauts clambered over created - if there was never an atmosphere on the moon?

Are some of these particles weathered or purely volcanic dust ..... and what was the breakdown mechanism that reduced the particles to a sand-like consistency?

People talk about there being no atmosphere on the Moon but ..... is it possible the gravitational effect of the Moon could, to some extent, trap ‘transparent’ gases emitted from ancient and possibly more recent underground seismic activity and water/chemical reactions going on in the substrate?

If so, maybe this could create ‘periodic’ atmospheric conditions ..... which, with the turning of the moon might generate a slight lunar wind as the Sun warms it’s surface?

[Maybe it was a slight lunar ‘breeze’ that moved the American flag during those missions - Rather than Stanley Kubrick’s film crew stuck in that hanger leaving an air conditioner switched on! ] ..... (gotta keep the Conspiracy Theory obsessives happy!)

 

[Dubdrifter]

This research confirms doubts about lunar formation I mentioned earlier-for those interested.
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/moon-formation-collision/
And other later studies confirm conclusions ....
https://www.space.com/31763-moon-creating-impact-mixed-lunar-earth-rocks.html

This National Geographic article dated July 2017 suggests scientists have been well aware of water evidence for sometime.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/water-moon-formed-volcanoes-glass-space-science/

Here is a related article written on the basis of NASA Research .... not sure how accurate it is.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/lunar-lava-tubes-polar-ice/

Extract:
“Google also offers individual prizes for completing certain milestones — including a Water Detection Bonus Prize. As it turns out, water may be the most valuable resource not only on the moon, but also in the solar system. Once frozen water has been located, the hydrogen and oxygen can easily be separated — and if you have hydrogen and oxygen, you have rocket fuel. Just imagine how much money the first lunar gas station could charge per gallon!”

The above quote comes from this article which illustrates what futuristic entrepreneurial businessmen are planning on our moon.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mining-the-moon-the-next-gold-rush/

What worries me slightly is the environmental damage that may be done in this ‘smash and grab’ for resources when there is no regulation.
Breaking up the moon for profit when it is so critical to the survival and ecosystem of Earth could possibly, longterm, have alarming consequences.
Poor regulation of Fracking Companies on Earth is destroying ancient underground reservoirs of water across the United States and now, around our World, as these bullying companies push this environmental disaster into other countries ..... And most people are either ignorant about it, or not bothered about the longterm effect of lethal cocktails of carcinogenic chemicals being so freely released into our precious, life-supporting environment.

Some companies exploit ..... a very few work in harmony with their environment. I just hope these greed-at-any-cost people move off our Earth before they totally mess up OUR planet. At least on the moon, they can’t do so much collateral damage .... killing so much critical life supporting wildlife ..... Hey, guys! ..... there is a huge free untapped ball of gas resource energy just waiting to be extracted ...... may I suggest you ALL get in a pioneering rocket to the Sun ..... and check it out?

These guys got there first (discussion and OP clip on my thread “Further questions on an interesting ‘Helioviewer’ recording of a strange ‘astronomy’ event.” .......and seem to have the technology to ‘extract’ .... go talk to them.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Hello, dears! I would like to say that i am completely sure in the fact that earlier or later the evidence of water on the moon will be found!

Candidly, I very much doubt it for the very good reasons posted above.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Update: From research done in 2008/9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

Maybe because this was largely an Indian experiment and discovery .... some members of this American-run forum are having trouble accepting research and ‘bold new theories’ on Moon Evolution coming from outside the Oracle of NASA.

A challenge to scientists - if this two stage erosion was not created by water, but by lava ..... maybe there is evidence to settle this argument once and for all? ...... High res pics of the lunar rover vehicles and their tracks show it is possible to take a series of detailed high res pictures along this canyon feature and probably prove conclusively this is not surface water erosion but purely a volcanic formation..... If I am wrong with my suspicion this feature is cut by water, especially the inner ‘rivulet’, I will eat .... a whole lemon cheesecake at one sitting.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The presence of water is not in question. "Snowfall" from comets and other cosmic bombardment, subsurface water... However, erosion requires liquid water, in substantial quantities. If the water welled up from some subsurface reservoir, we need conditions that would force it to the surface. If it reached or collected on the surface, how long before it either froze or boiled off in the vacuum? (Or do you also have a Moon-had-an-atmosphere-sufficient-to-sustain-surface-water theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon)

Basically, your supposition remains a long shot.

Here's a challenge for you - obtain the length, width, and depth of that "canyon." That should be easy enough to derive using well-known methods. It'd be nice to know whether we're looking at something the size of the Grand Canyon, which likely would have taken aeons to carve, or a small roadside ditch.

And by the way, eating a whole lemon cheesecake sounds like a celebration, not an act of humility. Why not accept the existing arguments against, and get on with dessert? ;-)

 

[Dubdrifter]

I agree AK, my ‘long shot’ theory does have a significant weakness sustaining erosion over such a long period.

High resolution images from a satellite camera should probably be sufficient for experts to determine if the main canyon and inner meandering ‘rivulet’ feature is volcanic or water eroded.

With this being such a distinctive feature maybe these images already exist in some archive? If not, it would be worth the time, effort and expense to focus on this zone as it may throw up detail that suggests this area might be a prime candidate for a 1st Lunar Base location .....

If the main canyon and inner ‘rivulet’ turn out to be volcanic formations, you can rest easy ..... [and I will be forced to eat symbolic ‘humble pie’. I think you under estimate the damage eating a lemon cheesecake can do to a human body system .... the cholesterol and fats could clog my arteries and result in heart attack or stroke. But someone has to put their life on the line to try and buck the trends of conventional science thinking!]

If just the inner ‘rivulet’ is water formed, as suggested by the twists and turns not being symptomatic of typical lava flow then the theory could be proposed this could be the result of subterranean tectonic plate/volcanic forces pushing spring water out under pressure in more modest quantities over a modest period of time.
..... but if both features are water erosion this throws up interesting ideas that other channels seen on the moon might be also formed from a period or several periods in the moon’s history when an atmosphere helped sculpt what we see today.

.... your interesting link to the Moon’s atmosphere on Wikipedia had this snippet at the end:

Past Thicker Atmosphere
“In October 2017, NASA scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston announced their finding, based on studies of Moon magma samples retrieved by the Apollo missions, that the Moon had once possessed a relatively thick atmosphere for a period of 70 million years between 3 and 4 billion years ago. This atmosphere, sourced from gases ejected from lunar volcanic eruptions, was twice the thickness of that of present-day Mars. The ancient lunar atmosphere was eventually stripped away by solar winds and dissipated into space”

Exciting discoveries of significant water erosion and polar icecaps on Mars, the results from the Indian Moon mission experiments plus Europa’s surprise package clearly shows water isn’t a rare unique commodity in our Solar System at all .... either today or historically.

It will be interesting to get a definitive answer on this erosion feature. I am not qualified to calculate the dimensions and depth of this moon feature, substrate composition and guess the max/min time it probably took to create it - maybe there are astro geologists who could v.roughly crunch the numbers on this during a coffee break? .... factoring in the moon’s gravity I guess.
I just like to ask awkward questions and propose ‘long shot’ theories .... and play Russian Roulette with cheesecake.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Yes, I saw that snippet. The clincher for me is that it "was twice the thickness of present-day Mars." In other words, by Earthly standards, pretty thin. Would it be enough to moderate the Moon's climate? I don't know, I'm not a climatologist. But yeah, if it was enough to support liquid surface water, 70 million years is more than enough time to do some carving.

Certainly, a steady diet of whole lemon cheese cakes will eventually do you in, but as a one-off it probably won't make a huge difference to long-term survival. Unless, of course you have an issue with your sugar metabolism, or lactose intolerance, or...

 

[Dubdrifter]

Yes, I agree on all points. Sounds a bit thin for the Moon to retain a fully functioning weather system.
Interesting to know what conditions influence how a planet retains an atmosphere. Guessing gravity, composition, proximity to sun, rotation speed etc?

Difficult for scientist to build up a comprehensive picture of the Moon’s atmospheric history embedded in the geology, from the rather limited samples they can analyse.


Re:Lava tube theory.
Took these frames from the Quick Map site .... I’m sure the professionals can dig out better, higher resolution stuff.
http://bit.ly/2t8NXWC

Seems a bit too winding for collapsed lava tubes, the recent Hawaiian footage shows lava rarely twists and turns around any slight gradient or obstruction.

Further along ‘canyon’, colour shaded at 8 metres/pixel resolution.
http://bit.ly/2JO9oGW

Here is where the Inner Cut first runs into the earlier formed wide ‘canyon’.
http://bit.ly/2M1po4W

Must admit I’m really struggling to see anything other than water erosion here TBH. What do you think?

 

[Tigger11]

Y

Re:Lava tube theory.
Took these frames from the Quick Map site .... I’m sure the professionals can dig out better, higher resolution stuff.
http://bit.ly/2t8NXWC

Seems a bit too winding for collapsed lava tubes, the recent Hawaiian footage shows lava rarely twists and turns around any slight gradient or obstruction.

Further along ‘canyon’, colour shaded at 8 metres/pixel resolution.
http://bit.ly/2JO9oGW

Here is where the Inner Cut first runs into the earlier formed wide ‘canyon’.
http://bit.ly/2M1po4W

Must admit I’m really struggling to see anything other than water erosion here TBH. What do you think?

I think you are being silly as usual. Though everyone at Marshall and beyond likes to talk theories about what kind of Vulcanism (especailly with the events in Hawaii going on now) causes specific Rille, (the name for the channels on the moon), noone thinks any of them were caused by water because of all the data I have previously sent you. Lava flow, collapsing lava tunnels, tectonic shift, lava flow and then cooling, all are responsible for different portions, but water not among the causes. Apollo 15 brought us back a ton of information from the Hadley Rille and 170 lbs of moon rock from the area, and in many ways its stranger looking then the Rille you are fascinated by.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

I think you are struggling to interpret what is clearly visible to most people in the pictures. Lava is unlikely to have formed this Inner Rivulet because as most people recognise, lava won't twist and turn to that degree on terrain like that. Unless you can show me good image examples where it does?

This 'canyon' feature appears filled with 'sandy' material and the inner channel is continuous so calling it a collapsed lava tube/tectonic shift/lava flow filled with whatever …. is a 'longer shot' than a water erosion explanation IMO.

Let's just beg to differ on what we are looking at and leave it at that.

Post 21

There are no ACTUAL theories of moon creation that have it with an atmosphere and flowing water.

You are strangely stuck on the idea the moon never had an atmosphere …. when research highlighted in Post 34.
Past Thicker Atmosphere clearly shows it did. Whether that atmosphere was enough to generate limited flowing water conditions is hard to say with certainty.
Your 170lbs of rock comes from a small sample area and a limited depth so other 'atmospheres' in the Moon's geological history may yet be discovered.

Just imagine trying to building a theory on Earth's geological history from just one or two sample areas!….. a ridiculous notion.
Research is continually shifting perspectives and theories, so it is very unwise to talk in dogmatic tones and certainties.

 

[monokakata]

Dubdrifter -- your statement about lava demonstrates that you don't know much about lava.

Here -- put up that picture you cited first, and then take a couple of these lava flow images from a week ago and put any or all of them next to it. I made these myself. Plus I grew up around Hawaiian lava and I can assure you that it twists and turns all the time. You are probably thinking of what we call 'a'a, the clinker type, slow moving, which will push itself around obstacles. Here I'm showing you what we call pahoehoe, very liquid, very fast-moving, able to twist and turn with the topography.

What the heck -- here are a pair of images from early 2017. We called this "the firehose." Liquid. Adaptable. Hot. Went where it wanted to.

I have zero interest in engaging you about water on the moon. But your statements about lava are just plain wacky.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Thanks for posting. And I appreciate the point you are making, and don’t doubt your experience in these matters ..... but the pictures you show only illustrate the possibility that lava could have cut the broader main channel before it filled with loose granular material/dust - if that is what we are seeing there.

The twisting evidence you present, the same picture from different angles, let’s be honest(!) just shows a lava river forced to meander around a hard bit of earlier solidified ancient eruption.

The twisting channels in the inner rivulet pics I posted, are more acute and very strangely ALL the ‘cutting agent’ has disappeared! Evapourated. From the main ‘canyon’ and the secondary ‘erosion’. There appears to be next to no solidified lava deposit build up at the end of these channels ..... or any of the many suspected ‘water cut’ channels highlighted on the Moon.

In conclusion:
1)NASA Research has established there was at least one ‘atmospheric’ period on the Moon

2)NASA +India’s 2008 evidence of water, especially subterranean water, is now well established (strange Monokakata has “zero interest discussing water on our Moon”)

3) If the ‘cutting agent’ has evapourated, then it has to have been water.

I rest my case.

P.S. Maybe more evidence will be presented of other ‘atmosphere’ phases in the Moon’s history from core samples gathered? ....

1)Wonder if someone can explain how the ‘dunes’ the Rover vehicle was roaming on were formed? With no atmosphere or erosion mechanisms ..... what made the volcanic dust particulate breakdown finely and evenly and concentrate in select areas?

2)Does anyone think the mild ‘wind’ that allegedly moved the American flag were gases heated out of the ground by the sun’s rays and global warming, captured in a thin, low gravity atmosphere and moved around gently by solar winds?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

It's awfully risky to rest your case when no-one but yourself is convinced by your arguments.

"It resembles something on Earth, so it must have been formed in the same way" is fitting the circumstances to match your knowledge. There will be times that your knowledge is simply inadequate to the task. Maybe nobody has the answer, so the solution is further investigation. Maybe others have the knowledge that you lack.

"It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it must be a duck" falls short if the "duck" has fur instead of feathers.

 

[monokakata]

Thanks for posting. And I appreciate the point you are making, and don’t doubt your experience in these matters ..... but the pictures you show only illustrate the possibility that lava could have cut the broader main channel before it filled with loose granular material/dust - if that is what we are seeing there.

The twisting evidence you present, the same picture from different angles, let’s be honest(!) just shows a lava river forced to meander around a hard bit of earlier solidified ancient eruption.

(strange Monokakata has “zero interest discussing water on our Moon”)

The lava doesn't "cut the broader main channel." The lava flowed where it wanted to go, the edges cooled, and when newer, hotter, more liquid lava erupted it created its own channel. This is called "channelization" and it's pretty much Lava 101.

Yes, "let's be honest(!)."

There's an American expression, "No *****, Dick Tracy." Of course there's only one flow right now, so I photographed various parts of it; it's a couple of miles long. I'm not tight enough with Pele, the volcano goddess, to ask her to put out another flow for you.

The "fire hose" was part of another flow, though.

The "ancient" eruptions you think you're seeing are in a couple of places as ancient as 1955 and 1960, and the banks of the current channelized flow date all the way back to May of this year. The lava "meandered" all by itself.

This flow has not made much in the way of lava tubes yet. It may, or it may not. The fire hose flow was extensively tubed. When the tops of those tubes erode, as they eventually will (in geological, not human time) they will appear as a system of gullies/valleys/channels.

This flow may or may not empty its channels when the vent stops erupting. If it does, the channels will be deep. Even if they don't empty completely, they will still remain as channels and the form of the cooled lava in the channels will be different from the banks, and differently-reflective, too. This sort of thing is easily seen elsewhere in Hawai'i. And on the moon.

I posted the pictures to show the ways lava meanders, reticulates, diverges, reforms and does all the other things that flowing liquids do. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

What I don't want to do is "discuss water on our Moon" with you. Clear? With you.

Arrgh. I told myself never to reply to one of your threads again -- months ago -- but I did it anyway. My mistake, and one I won't make again.

 

[Dubdrifter]

It's awfully risky to rest your case when no-one but yourself is convinced by your arguments.
"It resembles something on Earth, so it must have been formed in the same way" is fitting the circumstances to match your knowledge. There will be times that your knowledge is simply inadequate to the task. Maybe nobody has the answer, so the solution is further investigation. Maybe others have the knowledge that you lack.
"It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it must be a duck" falls short if the "duck" has fur instead of feathers.

I can't believe I am the only person, besides the video poster, who has suggested there might be water erosion evidence on the Moon.
Besides, if you want to start challenging accepted orthodoxy, you always start from a minority group ….. I thought I was making quite a good 'logical' argument so am disappointed you weren't convinced, AK ….. whether I am still alone in this view ….. isn't that a bit too early to call? …. unless you know all the views of others weighing this up.

If my argument was so flakey, top scientists reading this would have destroyed it by now and not found my theory so frustrating! I would have been happy with that and gone away educated ….. but my further questioning these 'sacred laws' with perfectly valid points, seems to upset people for some reason.

When I can see holes in an argument …. and I see a fair number in this one, if scientists can't address those holes …. yes, further research is necessary …..

This flow has not made much in the way of lava tubes yet. It may, or it may not. The fire hose flow was extensively tubed. When the tops of those tubes erode, as they eventually will (in geological, not human time) they will appear as a system of gullies/valleys/channels.
This flow may or may not empty its channels when the vent stops erupting. If it does, the channels will be deep. Even if they don't empty completely, they will still remain as channels and the form of the cooled lava in the channels will be different from the banks, and differently-reflective, too. This sort of thing is easily seen elsewhere in Hawai'i. And on the moon.
What I don't want to do is "discuss water on our Moon" with you. Clear? With you.
Arrgh. I told myself never to reply to one of your threads again -- months ago -- but I did it anyway. My mistake, and one I won't make again.

The last thing I want to do is drive Experts from forums discussing interesting, challenging anomalies we see in science. We are here for answers and want the experts to engage and provide satisfactory answers. If I get good answers I will be more than happy and retire educated.

Sorry to say your latest answer, highlighted in Bold, makes me have further doubts the current theory may have holes.
We are told the Moon has no atmosphere, little atmosphere, or historically little atmosphere to support erosion mechanisms ….. you are asking for extensive erosion of rock lava tubes on the Moon ….. this feat of larva erosion and ultimate 'disappearance' to particulate size would be near impossible on Earth. I see no debris field.

I thought the erosion theory 'carving' out a 'water' channel through loose particulate was a 'long shot' considering the water available and possible delivery options available.

Your theory throws up a whole new range of demands for 'erosion', the Moon hasn't yet shown it can deliver.

…… unless you have Lunar evidence of this? ….. 'dune/fine particulate formation' 'rock erosion'…. and what caused it etc.?

Frost of course requires water and an atmosphere to work effectively, and as you don't see that scenario or want to discuss it …. we best rule that one out!

 

[Tigger11]

I think you are struggling to interpret what is clearly visible to most people in the pictures. Lava is unlikely to have formed this Inner Rivulet because as most people recognise, lava won't twist and turn to that degree on terrain like that. Unless you can show me good image examples where it does?

This 'canyon' feature appears filled with 'sandy' material and the inner channel is continuous so calling it a collapsed lava tube/tectonic shift/lava flow filled with whatever …. is a 'longer shot' than a water erosion explanation IMO.

Every scientist says Rille are caused by volcanic activity, you decide they aren't because you don't think lava can move that way. You do that, despite people showing you pictures from Hawaii that show similar events, and decide flowing water on celestial body that hasn't had an atmosphere in over 3 BILLION YEARS, is more likely then lava. Now we know lava still lurks below the surface of the moon and has erupted from the surface in lots of places long after the atmosphere was gone, creating all the mares and rilles and all the other geologic sites of the moon, but Dubdrifter's Rille (not its actual name), is created by water, because NON-SCIENCE.

Post 21
You are strangely stuck on the idea the moon never had an atmosphere …. when research highlighted in Post 34.
Past Thicker Atmosphere clearly shows it did. Whether that atmosphere was enough to generate limited flowing water conditions is hard to say with certainty.
Your 170lbs of rock comes from a small sample area and a limited depth so other 'atmospheres' in the Moon's geological history may yet be discovered.

Just imagine trying to building a theory on Earth's geological history from just one or two sample areas!….. a ridiculous notion.
Research is continually shifting perspectives and theories, so it is very unwise to talk in dogmatic tones and certainties.

I'm not stuck on the idea the moon never had an atmosphere. I said quite clearly that it didnt have an atmosphere AND FLOWING WATER, I and all my degrees stand by that. You really should look at where I am from and realize using a document from Marshall in an argument that I am wrong about the moon, is pretty hilarious. In addition, you seem to be glossing over the most important part of the report, that tells you the atmosphere on the Moon went away OVER 3 BILLION years ago. You surely don't believe that the Rille you are fascinated by is over 3 Billion years old do you? Do you think all Rille are caused by water, or just the magic one you are focusing on now? Also we are focusing on the 170 lbs of rocks from Apollo 15, because its actual mission was to verify what caused the Rille, it gathered lbs of samples, 1000's of pictures, basically all for that purpose, would you look at the Hadley Rille and explain to us how it is volcanic but your Rille is not? Or is this a segway to the electric Rille theory popular on the Youtubes these days? That isn't true either, but it is right up your alley.
-Tig

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I can't believe I am the only person, besides the video poster, who has suggested there might be water erosion evidence on the Moon.
Besides, if you want to start challenging accepted orthodoxy, you always start from a minority group ….. I thought I was making quite a good 'logical' argument so am disappointed you weren't convinced, AK ….. whether I am still alone in this view ….. isn't that a bit too early to call? …. unless you know all the views of others weighing this up.

If my argument was so flakey, top scientists reading this would have destroyed it by now and not found my theory so frustrating! I would have been happy with that and gone away educated ….. but my further questioning these 'sacred laws' with perfectly valid points, seems to upset people for some reason.

When I can see holes in an argument …. and I see a fair number in this one, if scientists can't address those holes …. yes, further research is necessary …..

Well, my response to "I rest my case" wasn't addressing the possibility that others outside of this forum might be convinced by your arguments/hold similar views to your own - I was referring to the responses to your posts within this forum. Effectively, the jury is sitting with arms across their chests and scowls on their faces. If I was the attorney facing that jury, I wouldn't be confident that I'd made a convincing argument.

While it's true that challenges to orthodoxy (like most ideas in general) begin as a minority opinion, there's no guarantee that opinion will gain traction. Most, in fact, do not bear up to close scrutiny.

"Isn't that a bit too early to call?" Of course, that's why I challenged "I rest my case."

It would be nice if a top astrogeologist or two would weigh in on this discussion, but if that's what you require... People in that profession number in the thousands worldwide. The chances aren't great that they'll find their way to this particular thread on this particular website.

For the most part, laymen aren't in a position to convincingly argue with experts. It takes an expert to challenge another expert. Those arguments normally take place in topic-specific scientific journals and forums, not MacRumors.

We're all laymen in this discussion. Even when one of us has some knowledge of terrestrial geology, vulcanology, the structure of river valleys and their erosion (I'm a long-time whitewater river runner), we're far from expert in how those forces might behave on an extraterrestrial body that differs so markedly from the Earth in many key properties. If one of us happens to be a top expert in the production of crystalline silicon or an AI researcher, that doesn't qualify him/her to argue this particular matter.

The existence of lunar rilles is a well-known phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rille , long studied by planetary scientists and even an Apollo mission, not something newly discovered by a YouTuber. Lunar scientists are well beyond the, "Wow, that looks like" phase of this question. They've looked long and hard for evidence that would back up the water hypothesis, and have yet to find it. A few "but what if..." suppositions isn't enough to overcome the weight of existing evidence. However, many of those same scientists concluded that similar-looking features on Mars were water-made. The difference is in the details, not gross appearances.

 

[Dubdrifter]

[Apologies AK, just about to post this for Tigger 11,when your piece appeared .... but yes, I agree with your comments, hope some of the below reinforces my case]:

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Tigger 11,and referencing Hadley Rille research data relevant to your argument.
Studying this throws up a few question. You assert most scientists have made up their minds how Rilles are formed after the 1971 Apollo mission and sample analysis, but in the latest update on Rilles on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rille.
..... under the last picture on the right it says: “Hadley Rille is a sinuous rille for which NASA says that they don't have a (final and definite) conclusion on how it formed .... and this is a rille they have visited and sampled, so thought it not out of order to upset the ‘status quo’ opinion!

It continues in the Link: “The origin of lunar sinuous rilles remains controversial. Among the alternatives proposed are lava channels and lava tubes, but fracture control is decidedly apparent in some places. Some sort of fluid erosion, however, seems necessary to account for the configurations of many rilles with exactly parallel walls from which material has been removed; lava may be the most plausible agent for erosion inasmuch as no evidence of water exists in the lunar samples. The diversity among rilles suggests that several genetic hypotheses may be required to explain all of them”.-C.A.H.

So now we know significant water exists, surely this liquid hypothesis can be reawakened?

The Article defines a ‘Sinuous Rille’ as:
“Sinuous rilles meander in a curved path like a mature river, and are commonly thought to be the remains of collapsed lava tubes or extinct lava flows. They usually begin at an extinct volcano, then meander and sometimes split as they are followed across the surface”.

Maybe scientific theory on Rille formation, especially on the Moon, needs urgent revision. Key points I would like to make are:

1)There is no lava debris ‘downstream’ from ALL these smooth lunar rille erosions.
2)The theory that ALL these many Lunar lava tubes/rilles collapsed uniformly along their whole length, and not in broken segments, seems pretty preposterous!
3)To suggest the Inner Cut erosion in my ‘canyon’ example, is a second smaller lava tube also evenly collapsed over it’s length on top of the other ..... is surely scientific theory on LSD?!
4)Many lunar rilles don’t originate ‘downstream’ of an extinct volcano.
5)Our pock marked moon shows clearly Lunar erosion mechanisms are severely limited by it’s ‘atmospheric’ history, surely it is more likely these channels are cut by long term water erosion from possible subterranean ‘weeping’, with the flow cutting smooth channels through loose ‘pariculate’ debris before evapouration occured ....
6)There is NO evidence erosion mechanisms on the Moon have subsequently removed the lava debris of scientists ‘imagination’ that might have collected ‘downstream’ after exceptionally smooth rille formation!

Isn’t it time for Scientists to get over their mental block on this? Logic suggests I am 90% sure these were cut by liquid that then evaporated.

Evidence of water and it’s erosion features are being found in the history of many planetary bodies/moons of our Solar System ....

Many lunar asteroid/meteorite strikes plus subsurface volcanisation mechanisms could disturb subterranean water reservoirs (whose presence was confirmed by NASA/Indian research experiments) to create ‘springs’ on the moon and smoothly carve these very localised uniquely interesting features.

INTERESTING FOOTNOTE:
Just discovered Dubdroid’s ‘canyon’ has a name: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroter's_Valley
Sorry Dubs, no 5 mins of ‘fame’!

At the bottom of this page is an interesting comment which says “The Schroter Valley has been the subject of numerous Transient Lunar Phenomenon observations”! (Haven’t had time to dig out the details as to what form they took, maybe some reader will know?)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_lunar_phenomenon
Several options are listed.
It could be good evidence for the Dubdrifter/Dubdroid Schroter Valley Rille Creation/Water Erosion Theory (DDSVRCWET) ......

If the observations turn out to be periodic emissions of spring water creating cloud-like photo polarising effects and slight gaseous luminescence visible from Earth, then this area is probably still very active periodically, as the Inner cut erosion suggests ..... and more importantly, has probably been ‘weeping’ for millions of years.

..... surely this evidence now immediately bumps this location into the No.1 spot for Earth Civilisation’s first Lunar Base! Exciting times ahead, eh?!

Astronauts should start packing their divining rods and lightweight water drilling rigs .... long term Lunar colonisation is now set to ‘All Systems Go!’

 

[Dubdrifter]

Sorry to be a pain asking awkward questions, but this clip shows the Apollo Rover vehicle trundling along towards a large smooth loose particulate ‘dune’ .... which geology classes at school suggest are created and carved out either by wind or water.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Apollo_15_lunar_rover_EVA2.ogv

Seeing as surface water erosion is in short supply, these ‘dunes’, confirmed by their contours, must surely have been created and smoothed by considerable wind power, from a latter period when the Moon had a fairly active atmosphere?


Browsing the Transient Lunar Phenomena idea, it seems the Aristarchus Crater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_(crater), a significant impact deeper than the Grand Canyon very close to the Cobra’s Head of Schroteri’s Valley has been measuring significant (TLP) Radon gas emissions.

If you click the Link to the Radon page it says: “Despite its short lifetime, radon gas from natural sources, such as uranium-containing minerals, can accumulate in buildings, especially, due to its high density, in low areas such as basements and crawl spaces. Radon can also occur in ground water – for example, in some spring waters and hot springs”

Maybe we can conclude these high readings for Radon gas around this impact zone, could be from the disturbance of a significant subterranean water reservoir which burst out through the Cobra’s Head.
...... Or alternatively, radon gas oozing out with the spring water from the Cobra’s Head has gathered in the bottom of the Aristarchus Crater.

As I was writing this, my attention was drawn to the Herodotus ‘crater’ next door https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus_(crater)

..... and I think the following could finally explain how Schroter’s Valley was formed.

It’s described as an impact crater but as you can see it is filled with smooth lava deposit .... it’s position and terrain upstream of the Cobra’s Head suggests it could be an ancient volcanic crater and rim, whose activity has created or disturbed long term liquid(most likely subterranean water flow downstream of the Cobra’s Head which carved out the initial 10 kilometre wide ‘canyon’.

..... later on, the deep Aristarchus impact probably again disturbed the significant subterranean source and the more minor outpouring and inner erosion occured.


Footnote:
Hot springs and subterranean chambers are common around intense volcanic activity. The following comes from Wikipedia on Volcano emissions.

“The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano. However, water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions.
70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water. Where did that water come from? It is generally believed that most of it outgased from the interior of the earth during the first 700 million years of the earth’s existence”.

The Moon’s intense volcanic history has probably created significant subterranean water reserves which have vented out periodically creating the ‘weeping’ rilles we now see where lava debris is absent.

****This is an explanation I feel makes the most sense amongst the scenarios painted. Let me know if you see any weaknesses in the theory? ****

 

[ApfelKuchen]

****This is an explanation I feel makes the most sense amongst the scenarios painted. Let me know if you see any weaknesses in the theory? ****

The fundamental weakness is that you're depending upon terrestrial geology to describe extra-terrestrial phenomena. Since you know certain key factors are missing from the present-day Moon - an atmosphere to protect surface water from the solar wind (and create sand dunes), significant water flow to carve canyons, etc., you're reduced to a series of what-ifs - what if there are significant subterranean liquid water reservoirs, what if the atmosphere was sufficient, etc.

What you have might be enough for an entertaining sci-fi movie, but it's still speculative. Further, while it makes the "most sense" to you, it doesn't make nearly as much sense to those who have commented on your speculation. Rather than take this as a sign that your hypothesis may be lacking, you seem to have less self-doubt as this goes along, rather than more. It's all well and good to believe that you are right, but belief is not science. Possibilities are not proof. Scientific method begins with a hypothesis, it doesn't end with it.

While it's conceivable that an impact event might force water to the surface, there's also the possibility that a subterranean reservoir would be vaporized. Unless the conditions were just right, that vapor would rapidly decompose in the solar wind or cool from vapor to ice, with little chance to condense as a flowing liquid. What's more, the water would be dispersed over a much larger area than the original reservoir, meaning the reservoir would likely to have been huge in order to re-coalesce into a significant water flow. What you're hoping for seems to be the equivalent of a dam-break - the shock of impact unleashing a release of surface or subterranean water. First, there must be liquid water. How?

While it's possible a dune was created by winds during an early epoch when an atmosphere existed, it's also conceivable that it was rapidly formed by a blast wave consisting of newly-vaporized impact ejecta, or that what appears to be a dune is not a dune at all (dust-covered hills, let's say). Dunes are one structure not mentioned in the Wikipedia article on lunar geology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon .

Now, I haven't studied many images of lunar rilles. However, as someone who knows a bit about terrestrial rivers, one thing I've looked for is alluvial fans - effectively, river deltas. Alluvial fans are seen on Mars, which is one of many reasons scientists are willing to attribute Martian rilles to liquid water. Even if a delta doesn't form prior to the stream reaching a body of water, there will be a fan on the lake/sea bed. I haven't seen any in lunar photos (not that my limited investigation would be sufficient as proof). As I said in an earlier post, the "water" at the end of the channel seems to have disappeared down a rabbit hole. That could certainly happen in isolated cases, but it's not likely to happen in every case.

 

[Dubdrifter]

A gut instinct on an observation and your link now to the science of moon geology has in my last two posts crystallised enough evidence to make me think we have a credible explanation here.

If volcanic action on Earth and the Moon generate significant gaseous emissions that create subterranean chambers that fill with condensing water vapour .... which are trapped underground preventing evapouration in the Solar Wind, we have a mechanism here which may have created periodic atmospheres, maybe even brief lakes to create the rounded silicate particles subsequently dried and blown into the moon dunes of today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/File:As17-137-21009.jpg

..... with Moon soil composition ratios being thus described:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Composition_of_lunar_soil.svg

This feature below is akin to a Bahaman ‘blue’ hole which could suggest a gas outlet to extensive subterranean chambers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Mare_Tranquillitatis_pit_crater.jpg

As mentioned before, NASA and Indian research data now suggests billions of gallons of subterranean water on the Moon, which together with the Radon gas ‘spring water’ emission data concentrations found in the Aristarchus Crater area seems to be joining quite a few dots to make this theory more appealing.

Like you mention, surface ‘water’ erosion features on the Moon are pretty rare and alluvial fans like on Mars are significantly absent suggesting the differences in historical atmosphere retention and evidence of limited weather systems on the Moon are to blame.

I realise the combination of ‘coinciding’ factors might be too much for some .... but if you look at this picture of another area of significant lunar rille formation, we again have a combination of an ancient volcanic crater event coupled with a major meteor impact .... and a very similar series of ‘weeping’ events seem to have occurred from those theoretical hidden underground water condensate ‘reservoirs’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#/media/Filerinz_crater_Apollo_15.jpg

 

[Tigger11]

[Apologies AK, just about to post this for Tigger 11,when your piece appeared .... but yes, I agree with your comments, hope some of the below reinforces my case]:

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Tigger 11,and referencing Hadley Rille research data relevant to your argument.
Studying this throws up a few question. You assert most scientists have made up their minds how Rilles are formed after the 1971 Apollo mission and sample analysis, but in the latest update on Rilles on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rille.
..... under the last picture on the right it says: “Hadley Rille is a sinuous rille for which NASA says that they don't have a (final and definite) conclusion on how it formed .... and this is a rille they have visited and sampled, so thought it not out of order to upset the ‘status quo’ opinion!

It continues in the Link: “The origin of lunar sinuous rilles remains controversial. Among the alternatives proposed are lava channels and lava tubes, but fracture control is decidedly apparent in some places. Some sort of fluid erosion, however, seems necessary to account for the configurations of many rilles with exactly parallel walls from which material has been removed; lava may be the most plausible agent for erosion inasmuch as no evidence of water exists in the lunar samples. The diversity among rilles suggests that several genetic hypotheses may be required to explain all of them”.-C.A.H.

So now we know significant water exists, surely this liquid hypothesis can be reawakened?

They explain its controversial, and list several ways it could have been formed, all of which are volcanic in nature, and you go back to water. The Rille in question, starts out 10KM across and its alot less then 3 Billion years old, it would have taken even on the moon, a huge amount of time to make such a canyon with liquid water. And water has not flowed on the moon in large quantities likely ever, but for sure since the atmosphere was lost OVER 3 BILLION YEARS ago. It surely didn't flow for 1000s of years to form the Magic Rille you are talking about since the atmosphere has gone away, so water did not form the Rille. We can discuss how lava made it, and not be acting silly, but this giant river for 1000's of years, didn't happen, and frankly as others have pointed out, it doesn't even look like a "river" valley as you are contending.
-Tig