Thanks for your detailed reply. Just taking time to study your argument and the links in your data .... get back to you shortly.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon
- Thread starter Dubdrifter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Apologies for delayed reply, busy week.
Firstly, thanks for the interesting links... but posting great pictures that boost my theory.... is that wise? ....
See Pic 2 in this link Tig posted.
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1022
Bit puzzled why astronomers are not seeing the association between meteor impact, fracturing around crater eruptions/lava fields and rille formation? .... Especially when there are quite a few lunar rilles that originate directly out of the ‘eye’ of an impact!
Seeing the depth of the Aristarchus Impact close to the Herodotus lava field explains why so much subterranean chamber fracturing occured here and why radon gas seepage was detected. As deep as the Grand Canyon apparently.The shock waves of this impact must have done some serious damage underground. The bright albedo from materials ejected and heat generated could easily have created the localised pressures to force significant water reserves out of the Cobra’s Head.
The Cobra’s Head might be an angled impact ‘eye’ right near the lava field triggering the significant ‘ooze’. Breaking tubes of condensated water at an angle surely increases the size of the leakage hole?
In the bottom left of this picture we have another ‘eye’ impact rille.
We also see a complete absence of lava residue or a lava field at the end of each rille, or any disturbance of the Mares ...... and we now know shallow lava tubes 1.5km - 10 km wide (Hadley-Schroter) aren’t an observable reality in our Solar System.
From this picture alone, astronomers must surely conclude lava wasn’t involved, ...... then realise they have to reassess their data on atmosphere/temperature scenarios in the last 3 billion years that told them water could NEVER EVER erode the surface without freezing or boiling first ..... especially bearing in mind that other planetary bodies more distant and closer to our Sun, with greater extremes of temperature manage to carve patterns of ‘water’ erosion similar to lunar rilles.
Slide 17 (Koko Crater) in Tig’s link below: ...... shows how easy it is for water to cut deep erosion channels in this sort of material.
“Volcanic channels and lava tubes are also known to occur at many basaltic volcanos on Earth, such as in Hawai'i, but Hadley Rille is much larger than terrestrial volcanic channels."
Two phases of erosion need to be engineered for Schroter’s Valley(SV), the first phase needs to be for a significant time ..... it’s a behemoth of a rille ..... the other rilles are minor ‘trickles’ compared, including the secondary ‘leak’ in Schroter’s Valley.
With up to 60% steam in gas emissions, do we have a more sensible reason why our Earth is covered in water? .... rather than the rather silly idea it came from ice meteors/comets in the Asteroid Belt? [NOTE:when scientists claim the Galileo probe didn’t find water in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter ‘because it hit a dry spot’ (see the recent Horizon program “Jupiter Revealed” on the Juno mission)..... maybe it’s because ice meteors from the Asteroid Belt haven’t deliver measurable quantities of water to any planet or moon in our Solar System?
The work of Dr Wendy Panero of Ohio State University is interesting, using diamonds, high pressure and lasers to try and recreate conditions in the Earth’s core that drives the water out of liquified rocks outlining a viable theory on Earth’s water creation that produces sufficient volumes to fill the Earth’s oceans from the dissolved mantle. Check out this radio interview that explains the principles involved:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-10/how-earth-made-its-own-water-out-rocks
.... Notice she is being polite to Cosmologists who think Earth’s water comes from the Asteroid Belt!
Her calculations show no outlandish ‘snowballs’ from space are necessary to explain why life here is a ‘beach’.
Her interesting comments that tectonic plate activity plays an important role together with intense heat and pressure to drive water produced to the surface.
Maybe the lack of sustained tectonic plate activity on the moon coupled with weak atmospheric retention can explain why oceans are not found on the moon, but sufficient heat and pressure has generated enough trapped water condensate to form lunar rilles.
I will eat another lemon cheesecake if it is not proven, within 5 years, 99% of water found on Solar System planets and moons was (and is) created by internal volcanic action during their evolution.
Firstly, thanks for the interesting links... but posting great pictures that boost my theory.... is that wise? ....
See Pic 2 in this link Tig posted.
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1022
Bit puzzled why astronomers are not seeing the association between meteor impact, fracturing around crater eruptions/lava fields and rille formation? .... Especially when there are quite a few lunar rilles that originate directly out of the ‘eye’ of an impact!
Seeing the depth of the Aristarchus Impact close to the Herodotus lava field explains why so much subterranean chamber fracturing occured here and why radon gas seepage was detected. As deep as the Grand Canyon apparently.The shock waves of this impact must have done some serious damage underground. The bright albedo from materials ejected and heat generated could easily have created the localised pressures to force significant water reserves out of the Cobra’s Head.
The Cobra’s Head might be an angled impact ‘eye’ right near the lava field triggering the significant ‘ooze’. Breaking tubes of condensated water at an angle surely increases the size of the leakage hole?
In the bottom left of this picture we have another ‘eye’ impact rille.
We also see a complete absence of lava residue or a lava field at the end of each rille, or any disturbance of the Mares ...... and we now know shallow lava tubes 1.5km - 10 km wide (Hadley-Schroter) aren’t an observable reality in our Solar System.
From this picture alone, astronomers must surely conclude lava wasn’t involved, ...... then realise they have to reassess their data on atmosphere/temperature scenarios in the last 3 billion years that told them water could NEVER EVER erode the surface without freezing or boiling first ..... especially bearing in mind that other planetary bodies more distant and closer to our Sun, with greater extremes of temperature manage to carve patterns of ‘water’ erosion similar to lunar rilles.
Slide 17 (Koko Crater) in Tig’s link below: ...... shows how easy it is for water to cut deep erosion channels in this sort of material.
“Volcanic channels and lava tubes are also known to occur at many basaltic volcanos on Earth, such as in Hawai'i, but Hadley Rille is much larger than terrestrial volcanic channels."
Two phases of erosion need to be engineered for Schroter’s Valley(SV), the first phase needs to be for a significant time ..... it’s a behemoth of a rille ..... the other rilles are minor ‘trickles’ compared, including the secondary ‘leak’ in Schroter’s Valley.
Er.... I didn’t say that .... I said some volcanic eruptions on Earth have 60% steam in their gas emissions, and you need the water/steam pressures of violent pyroclast eruptions to throw these minerals sufficiently high in the air to fall as round beaded minerals ...... the high concentrations of green magnesium beads being sampled by Apollo 15+17 having a correlation to high concentrations of magnesium in Earth’s oceans and volcanic spring water.
I am more than happy to be alone joining the dots on the scientific data differently to Lava Theorists .... it’s what pioneering thinkers have to do all the time - not that what I am saying is pioneering, it’s probably been said before, but just ignored. It does concern me why scientists have swallowed Lava Rille Theory hook, line and sinker for soooo long, when the photographic evidence so strongly discounts it. It has been interesting to dig out the small nuggets of scientific research that supports my theory as this debate unfolds ..... the geochemistry research experiments of Dr Wendy Panero may give another clue I might be on to something here (See below).
With up to 60% steam in gas emissions, do we have a more sensible reason why our Earth is covered in water? .... rather than the rather silly idea it came from ice meteors/comets in the Asteroid Belt? [NOTE:when scientists claim the Galileo probe didn’t find water in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter ‘because it hit a dry spot’ (see the recent Horizon program “Jupiter Revealed” on the Juno mission)..... maybe it’s because ice meteors from the Asteroid Belt haven’t deliver measurable quantities of water to any planet or moon in our Solar System?
The work of Dr Wendy Panero of Ohio State University is interesting, using diamonds, high pressure and lasers to try and recreate conditions in the Earth’s core that drives the water out of liquified rocks outlining a viable theory on Earth’s water creation that produces sufficient volumes to fill the Earth’s oceans from the dissolved mantle. Check out this radio interview that explains the principles involved:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-10/how-earth-made-its-own-water-out-rocks
.... Notice she is being polite to Cosmologists who think Earth’s water comes from the Asteroid Belt!
Her calculations show no outlandish ‘snowballs’ from space are necessary to explain why life here is a ‘beach’.
Her interesting comments that tectonic plate activity plays an important role together with intense heat and pressure to drive water produced to the surface.
Maybe the lack of sustained tectonic plate activity on the moon coupled with weak atmospheric retention can explain why oceans are not found on the moon, but sufficient heat and pressure has generated enough trapped water condensate to form lunar rilles.
I will eat another lemon cheesecake if it is not proven, within 5 years, 99% of water found on Solar System planets and moons was (and is) created by internal volcanic action during their evolution.
Here is an article that could partly describe some of the mechanisms going on for water creation on the Moon and other bodies in our Solar System.
https://phys.org/news/2014-12-hints-ancient-earth-watergeologically.html
It seems the relationship between reduced plate tectonic activity on the Moon combined with a weak atmosphere and solar wind has largely contributed to the reason it is so dry.
Still puzzled what the tipping point factor was in the evolution of both bodies seeing as they originated from the same source, and both sit in the same Goldilocks zone, yet one retained an atmosphere whilst the other didn’t? .... thinking aloud, hard to believe their cores are so different, or size and cooling were so critical, or magnetic field/gravitational effects left one with an atmosphere and the other without?
...... Here’s a thought, unless the Earth and Moon came from the same source but evolved initially on different evolutionary orbits around our Sun before colliding gently (see giant impact marks on lunar surface) and becoming wrapped up together in each other’s gravitational spell.
***********
Just caught a short Horizon documentary “Ocean’s of the Solar System” .... in the 18 minute version, the discussion mentioned calcium perchrorite salts on Mars lowering the freezing point of water.
Here is a related article: https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html
Re: Tig’s concerns over low temperature water flow on the Moon’s surface .... if there are salts with similar properties dissolved in lunar volcanic spring sources, the temperature of oozing and this ‘antifreeze’ quality may combine to keep water liquid to create erosion features before it eventually evaporates.
https://phys.org/news/2014-12-hints-ancient-earth-watergeologically.html
It seems the relationship between reduced plate tectonic activity on the Moon combined with a weak atmosphere and solar wind has largely contributed to the reason it is so dry.
Still puzzled what the tipping point factor was in the evolution of both bodies seeing as they originated from the same source, and both sit in the same Goldilocks zone, yet one retained an atmosphere whilst the other didn’t? .... thinking aloud, hard to believe their cores are so different, or size and cooling were so critical, or magnetic field/gravitational effects left one with an atmosphere and the other without?
...... Here’s a thought, unless the Earth and Moon came from the same source but evolved initially on different evolutionary orbits around our Sun before colliding gently (see giant impact marks on lunar surface) and becoming wrapped up together in each other’s gravitational spell.
***********
Just caught a short Horizon documentary “Ocean’s of the Solar System” .... in the 18 minute version, the discussion mentioned calcium perchrorite salts on Mars lowering the freezing point of water.
Here is a related article: https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html
Re: Tig’s concerns over low temperature water flow on the Moon’s surface .... if there are salts with similar properties dissolved in lunar volcanic spring sources, the temperature of oozing and this ‘antifreeze’ quality may combine to keep water liquid to create erosion features before it eventually evaporates.
Apologies for delayed reply, busy week.
Firstly, thanks for the interesting links... but posting great pictures that boost my theory.... is that wise? ....
See Pic 2 in this link Tig posted.
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1022
Bit puzzled why astronomers are not seeing the association between meteor impact, fracturing around crater eruptions/lava fields and rille formation? .... Especially when there are quite a few lunar rilles that originate directly out of the ‘eye’ of an impact!
Seeing the depth of the Aristarchus Impact close to the Herodotus lava field explains why so much subterranean chamber fracturing occured here and why radon gas seepage was detected. As deep as the Grand Canyon apparently.The shock waves of this impact must have done some serious damage underground. The bright albedo from materials ejected and heat generated could easily have created the localised pressures to force significant water reserves out of the Cobra’s Head.
The Cobra’s Head might be an angled impact ‘eye’ right near the lava field triggering the significant ‘ooze’. Breaking tubes of condensated water at an angle surely increases the size of the leakage hole?
In the bottom left of this picture we have another ‘eye’ impact rille.
We also see a complete absence of lava residue or a lava field at the end of each rille, or any disturbance of the Mares ...... and we now know shallow lava tubes 1.5km - 10 km wide (Hadley-Schroter) aren’t an observable reality in our Solar System.
How confused are you? Literally the picture shows the cobra which erupted lava creating the Rille which then flowed into Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms)which I believe you will find is the largest dried lava field on the moon and one of the largest in the solar system. Its thousands of square miles in size and miles and miles and miles deep. How exactly is flowing into the largest area of hardened lava on the moon, not showing you where the lava went???? Again, the moon is too cold for flowing water, pure water freezes at 0 degrees C, Salt water gets you -2 Degrees, nothing gets you water flowing at -170 degrees that the moon is when its night.
Again, no, you simply don't understand physics or chemistry, not sure which I should try and teach you first. High concentration of Magnesium beads in Apollo moon rocks have NO correlation to concentrations of Magnesium in Earths oceans or volcanic springs.
Look you can be Don Quixote if you want, but the rest of us really know its a windmill and not a giant.
-Tig
[doublepost=1534963589][/doublepost]
Again, mixing things into water can lower the freezing temperature of water. Our Salty oceans freeze at about -2 degrees Celsius instead of 0 like pure water, but the moon is -170 degrees celsius at night and I don't know of anything that makes water not freeze at that temperature and why hasn't this substance been found in the samples from the moon while the the mars data has been known for awhile?? And then it goes day and the water in the sun is destroyed by he sunlight on the moon, so you just dont have the millions of years of flowing water (ie the grand canyon you were mentioning) on the moon, no atmosphere, no good temperature ranges and so no opportunity. Its lava flows, you really need to stop looking at pictures and saying this is what I think it looks like or you are doing Platypus science, and you really don't want to be doing that.
-Tig
Last edited:
Once again, thank you for taking the time and trouble to write a post which is both a sensible, sane response and a well argued refutation of the position that has been put forward by the OP.
Last edited:
I can see geology and volcanism are not your strong points, firstly the Cobra’s Head is NOT a volcanic crater. Proof: http://bit.ly/2NczYHk
Ask any geologist for a second opinion.
Maybe astronomers should leave the interpretation of planet formation and rille theory to geologists in future? .... if this is the level of expertise astronomers are reaching here.
Herodotus is the dead volcanic crater here, with it’s lava field running towards the Head. You can see the rough undulations of the lava flow mixed with ejecta from the deep Aristarchus meteor impact. (Overview 2nd image here: http://www.lroc.asu.edu/posts/1022)
Er .... it’s easier for me to teach you the correlation is that magnesium also appears in HIGH concentrations in our oceans and springs ..... Confirmed by the research experiments of Dr Wendy Panero to have been formed as a bi-product of rock liquefaction ..... which has occured to a large degree on the moon. If you are still struggling with ‘correlating’ ..... this snippet quote from Wikipedia on Lunar Water:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
“Lunar scientists had discussed the possibility of water repositories for decades. They are now increasingly "confident that the decades-long debate is over" a report says. "The Moon, in fact, has water in all sorts of places; not just locked up in minerals, but scattered throughout the broken-up surface, and, potentially, in blocks or sheets of ice at depth." The results from the Chandrayaan-1 mission are also "offering a wide array of watery signals.
And the water locked up in minerals? ......
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-once-harbored-water/
The Apollo samples taken around Hadley Rille etc.
Current lunar night freezing temperatures at the Poles (-170 degrees) are not a sticking point for this theory. Schroter’s Valley is not at the Poles!
Er .... Geologists will also confirm spring water from volcanic sources often comes out of the ground ‘ready heated’ ...... Besides, with all that intensive lunar volcanic action over 3 billion years and beyond, where do you get the idea the ground is going to be freezing cold throughout rille creation history?
Even between Tig’s extremes of current day/night temperatures (with strangely nothing in between) .... rilles will get at least 12+ hours morning/dusk free flowing erosion action per day over 3 billion years!
Weak atmosphere’s change, spring water cools .... scenarios change alot in 3 billion years. Just because some astronomers don’t want it to happen, because it upsets their precious theory ..... believe me .... it happened when conditions were right ..... and have been proven to be right .... the photos clearly show it.
One other point,
I didn’t state it was Calcium Perchlorite salts that were the ‘antifreeze’ ingredient involved here on the Moon .... as I have mentioned above, no ‘antifreeze’ or chemical dissolving may be necessary in this scenario ..... but still interesting to see if traces exist in deep core samples from the bottom of Hadley Rille.
Hopefully this spring water might be incredibly pure and drinkable as surface staining of rille sands seems to be minimal.
Also, one other scenario exists where the flow of this water could be underneath the bottom of each rille ‘insulated’ from extremes of temperature/evaporation factors ..... the loose particulate above collapsing in after erosion of the channel then smoothed off by historic mild ‘wind’ erosion ..... (the lunar wind that created the dunes the lunar rover bounced over?).
Why don’t astronomers on here want to talk about how those dunes were formed? ...... Because wind and water erosion is strangely taboo to them in all historic lunar scenarios.
Last edited:
Struggle to get past the first issue with liquid water on any body such as the moon, that issue is pressure.
"Dunes" you mention or regolith(?), people have talked about it, a lot. It was great concern for the manned landers as they did not know how deep the regolith was when they first envisaged stepping out on the surface. They found out what it was. It is not a closed subject to the engineers and scientists that needed to know.
On a related note (moon landings) they used sublimation cooling on the suits. That was a total loss using water. They used what happens to water in a vacuum to help regulate temperature of the astronauts.
"Dunes" you mention or regolith(?), people have talked about it, a lot. It was great concern for the manned landers as they did not know how deep the regolith was when they first envisaged stepping out on the surface. They found out what it was. It is not a closed subject to the engineers and scientists that needed to know.
On a related note (moon landings) they used sublimation cooling on the suits. That was a total loss using water. They used what happens to water in a vacuum to help regulate temperature of the astronauts.
If you wish to partake of a scientific discussion, might I suggest that you please cease and desist from insulting posters who try to engage with the utter tosh you persist in posting, and rather, attempt to engage with their arguments and refutations instead.
Literally this is the quote on the picture in question:
"The "Cobra head" volcanic vent fed a river of lava that flowed down the Aristatuchus plateau before spilling out onto the lava plains of Oceanus Procellarum. To the east (left) of the Cobra head is Aristarchus crater and to the west (right) is Herodotus crater; Marius crater (40 kilometer diameter) is in the far distance very near the limb."
The cobra head is the source of lava, thats the opinion of a whole bunch of geologists at Marshall, JPL and other places. You know people who actually went to school for this kind of thing. I don't care what you think it looks like, your theory literally requires water that can flow above boiling or below freezing, because thats all the temperatures you have on the surface of the moon.
First of all you seem to be confused about temperatures and days on the moon. The Moon's day is 27 earth days, for 13.5 days or so its so cold water is frozen solid on the surface, then for the next 13.5 days its above boiling. The transition between the states is really short with no atmosphere. Here's an article that will explain more to you.
https://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
Also again your Rille is less then 1.1 Billion years old it was formed after the atmosphere was gone from the moon and there isnt time for water which can't flow on the moon to have caused it. I've deleted your whole how the water came to the moon part of the thread because it has nothing to do with what caused the Rille. I know there is water on the moon, its just not liquid on the surface and thus didnt create the Rille as you believe they did. We've known definitely since M3 that there is water on the Moon, but we've known since the Apollo missions that the Rille were created by Lava.
-Tig
What vented out the Cobra’s Head, lava or water? (The photos show it all). Maybe your Marshall, JPL guys should take another closer look .... the position of the Herodotus crater, the lack of a defined volcanic lava vent, no lava residues? (In all lunar rilles and secondary too in the case of Schroter’s Rille).
Maybe they will see this theory has something? Have you asked them this week? Bearing in mind the new mineral evidence highlighted?
Are Geologist convinced these current lunar temperature/solar wind extremes have always been around to hampered Schroter Valley rille creation by water erosion? Seeing as there is evidence of a lunar atmosphere at one time, which wouldn’t have survived if these extremes were that damaging.
Some evidence suggests these long lunar day ‘burns’ and long night ‘freezes’ aren’t as damaging to moisture/atmosphere levels as previously thought. This article mentions small water particles being present on the moon’s surface:
https://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html
Thanks for correcting my lunar day/night interval error BTW. In the link you gave .... the thermal map of temperature extremes at the South Lunar Pole? .... is there any data of day/night and seasonal variations for the relevant area to this discussion? No point making an argument water won’t flow in SV because it freezes at the Poles, whatever the day/night intervals are!)
....... Can astronomers be certain the temperature of the spring water and flow rate here and ground temperatures were NEVER significant enough to combat these lunar ‘difficulties’ to create this substantial erosion for a significant period in the circumstances described at this location?
Is it wise to make a definitive ruling on SV’s creation when scientists haven’t been there, drilled, sampled and analysed.
********
400, .... Appreciate your point about pressures, but most celestial bodies in our Solar System have been through varying degrees of change in axis rotation/temperature/pressure/magnetic fields/atmospheres in their evolution to the present day ..... and still show signs of historic surface water flow ...... which begs the question ..... can current day scenarios really apply to historic rille formation?.
******
It will be interesting to know if Dr Wendy Panero’s work has been extended by others to build up a picture of which mixed mineral earth core combinations give the highest % of water bi-product from molten liquifaction.
Here are more clues on this water production theory:https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...o-the-moon-lunar-volcanic-glass/#884386f28789
Looking at surface mineral signatures in planetary/lunar volcanic ejecta, combining this with meteor strike/rille creation observations ..... should give clues where to set up your water drilling rig, possibly even strike water sources with better purity levels ..... and guarantee the future success of colonisation research stations, possibly mineral mining concerns.
Maybe they will see this theory has something? Have you asked them this week? Bearing in mind the new mineral evidence highlighted?
Are Geologist convinced these current lunar temperature/solar wind extremes have always been around to hampered Schroter Valley rille creation by water erosion? Seeing as there is evidence of a lunar atmosphere at one time, which wouldn’t have survived if these extremes were that damaging.
Some evidence suggests these long lunar day ‘burns’ and long night ‘freezes’ aren’t as damaging to moisture/atmosphere levels as previously thought. This article mentions small water particles being present on the moon’s surface:
https://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html
Thanks for correcting my lunar day/night interval error BTW. In the link you gave .... the thermal map of temperature extremes at the South Lunar Pole? .... is there any data of day/night and seasonal variations for the relevant area to this discussion? No point making an argument water won’t flow in SV because it freezes at the Poles, whatever the day/night intervals are!)
....... Can astronomers be certain the temperature of the spring water and flow rate here and ground temperatures were NEVER significant enough to combat these lunar ‘difficulties’ to create this substantial erosion for a significant period in the circumstances described at this location?
Is it wise to make a definitive ruling on SV’s creation when scientists haven’t been there, drilled, sampled and analysed.
********
400, .... Appreciate your point about pressures, but most celestial bodies in our Solar System have been through varying degrees of change in axis rotation/temperature/pressure/magnetic fields/atmospheres in their evolution to the present day ..... and still show signs of historic surface water flow ...... which begs the question ..... can current day scenarios really apply to historic rille formation?.
******
It will be interesting to know if Dr Wendy Panero’s work has been extended by others to build up a picture of which mixed mineral earth core combinations give the highest % of water bi-product from molten liquifaction.
Here are more clues on this water production theory:https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...o-the-moon-lunar-volcanic-glass/#884386f28789
Looking at surface mineral signatures in planetary/lunar volcanic ejecta, combining this with meteor strike/rille creation observations ..... should give clues where to set up your water drilling rig, possibly even strike water sources with better purity levels ..... and guarantee the future success of colonisation research stations, possibly mineral mining concerns.
And I mentioned research into the "dunes". I believe much was brought back. Wonder what the geology experts can say about it.
Edit. Apologies for the delay in adding, rather than post new.
Water is a round in the solar system in many forms and in many circumstances. What do you see as a pointer to your case?
Last edited:
More of these threads please Dub. People need to learn the truth about the moon being a military base for ancient alien liquid beings and the canyons being sculpted by water erosion.
If the canyons were made by volcanoes, then this would have boiled the ancient liquid beings and they wouldn't have been able to make the moon in the first place. Checkmate, doubters.
If the canyons were made by volcanoes, then this would have boiled the ancient liquid beings and they wouldn't have been able to make the moon in the first place. Checkmate, doubters.
Firstly a Confession and an Apology to Tigger.
Because of my rooky error and ignorance of the unusually long 13.5 day/night lunar cycle, as highlighted in Post 84, and ignorance of the severe prolonged extremes of temperature this creates on the lunar surface .... I was struggling to understand why astronomers were so hostile to the idea of water flowing on the moon’s surface, and Schroter’s Valley being created by water erosion .... when new evidence was showing water flow was happening on so many other bodies in our Solar System ..... so why not on our Moon?
Finally it’s now clear to me why astronomers argue that case and have nailed in lava theory .... even though it has certain anomalies that don’t quite add up ..... as I’ve tried to highlight in this debate.
Have to be honest and admit, Post 84 shook my conviction in water erosion too ..... especially when all the other signs ..... lack of lava residues, numerous photographs, no sign the Cobra Head was a volcanic vent, the secondary ‘erosion channel’, radon gas detection, high magnesium concentrations, rock liquifaction producing water/steam biproducts, beading from pyroclast explosions, ruptured tubes spring water gushing under pressure etc ....... all things I thought (but nobody else!) were making my case stronger ..... and pointed the finger clearly away from lava erosion.
So despite all these ‘positives’ that made the idea of rille water erosion work ..... and work quite well ..... “Is water erosion on the moon” truly dead? ..... Scuppered by 13.5 days of intense heat and 13.5 nights of intense cold, a Solar Wind and a weak atmosphere?
People making unfortunate comments about aliens and moon bases might think this discussion is ‘silly’ ..... but I disagree.
Did anyone in the past say ..... “Out of ignorance, errors and discussion comes new theory and progress”? Who knows.
For those thinking “lunar water erosion” is FINALLY dead ..... bad news ..... George Romero’s ‘ignorant half breed laboratory experiment’ has one last throw of the dice.
With all the ‘positives’ above pointing to water production and flow in select places under exceptional circumstances ..... important not to allow temperature/atmosphere extremes to totally scupper the idea of lunar water erosion ..... to many it might seem ‘impossible’ because of present circumstances ..... to some, ‘improbable’ should be a better word, considering conditions on the surface could have changed over the last 1 billion years.
Here are circumstances where water erosion can still etch all the rilles on the Moon - less affected by the ravages of lunar extremes.
1) Periodic, sudden mass ejections of considerable quantities of heated/ then latterly cooler water under pressure flowing over the loose particulate .... possibly triggered by volcanic spring machinations and possibly even 13.5 day/night cycle extremes.
2) Subsurface eroding and dissolving of rille valleys filled later and smoothed with more loose particulate.
3) In the transition periods between temperature extremes and where seasonal variations, if significantly applicable, allow.
4) Where historic variations in atmospheric conditions have allowed .....
Maybe rille creation ..... if water eroded ..... suggests the last 1 billion years on our Moon really hasn’t been as bad as astronomers think.
Whether all this ‘wiggle room’ is enough to cut Schroter’s Rille in that time, is the big question, which depends on the local temperatures in that region over that period.
Be interesting to see annual thermal pattern data on this specific region, if it exists.
Because of my rooky error and ignorance of the unusually long 13.5 day/night lunar cycle, as highlighted in Post 84, and ignorance of the severe prolonged extremes of temperature this creates on the lunar surface .... I was struggling to understand why astronomers were so hostile to the idea of water flowing on the moon’s surface, and Schroter’s Valley being created by water erosion .... when new evidence was showing water flow was happening on so many other bodies in our Solar System ..... so why not on our Moon?
Finally it’s now clear to me why astronomers argue that case and have nailed in lava theory .... even though it has certain anomalies that don’t quite add up ..... as I’ve tried to highlight in this debate.
Have to be honest and admit, Post 84 shook my conviction in water erosion too ..... especially when all the other signs ..... lack of lava residues, numerous photographs, no sign the Cobra Head was a volcanic vent, the secondary ‘erosion channel’, radon gas detection, high magnesium concentrations, rock liquifaction producing water/steam biproducts, beading from pyroclast explosions, ruptured tubes spring water gushing under pressure etc ....... all things I thought (but nobody else!) were making my case stronger ..... and pointed the finger clearly away from lava erosion.
So despite all these ‘positives’ that made the idea of rille water erosion work ..... and work quite well ..... “Is water erosion on the moon” truly dead? ..... Scuppered by 13.5 days of intense heat and 13.5 nights of intense cold, a Solar Wind and a weak atmosphere?
People making unfortunate comments about aliens and moon bases might think this discussion is ‘silly’ ..... but I disagree.
Did anyone in the past say ..... “Out of ignorance, errors and discussion comes new theory and progress”? Who knows.
For those thinking “lunar water erosion” is FINALLY dead ..... bad news ..... George Romero’s ‘ignorant half breed laboratory experiment’ has one last throw of the dice.
With all the ‘positives’ above pointing to water production and flow in select places under exceptional circumstances ..... important not to allow temperature/atmosphere extremes to totally scupper the idea of lunar water erosion ..... to many it might seem ‘impossible’ because of present circumstances ..... to some, ‘improbable’ should be a better word, considering conditions on the surface could have changed over the last 1 billion years.
Here are circumstances where water erosion can still etch all the rilles on the Moon - less affected by the ravages of lunar extremes.
1) Periodic, sudden mass ejections of considerable quantities of heated/ then latterly cooler water under pressure flowing over the loose particulate .... possibly triggered by volcanic spring machinations and possibly even 13.5 day/night cycle extremes.
2) Subsurface eroding and dissolving of rille valleys filled later and smoothed with more loose particulate.
3) In the transition periods between temperature extremes and where seasonal variations, if significantly applicable, allow.
4) Where historic variations in atmospheric conditions have allowed .....
Maybe rille creation ..... if water eroded ..... suggests the last 1 billion years on our Moon really hasn’t been as bad as astronomers think.
Whether all this ‘wiggle room’ is enough to cut Schroter’s Rille in that time, is the big question, which depends on the local temperatures in that region over that period.
Be interesting to see annual thermal pattern data on this specific region, if it exists.
But post #84 is not the first time that @Tigger11 pointed this out to you, @Dubdrifter.
Over the course of the thread, @Tigger11 has made this very point many times in several different posts about the stark and swift and striking differences between the temperatures of the surface of the moon during the lunar day and the lunar night, and how, for different reasons, not least the complete absence of an atmosphere, this means that the conditions of neither the lunar day nor the lunar night could ever have allowed water to exist in a liquid form on the surface of the moon.
However, I am pleased to see that you have been persuaded of the validity of his arguments.
Over the course of the thread, @Tigger11 has made this very point many times in several different posts about the stark and swift and striking differences between the temperatures of the surface of the moon during the lunar day and the lunar night, and how, for different reasons, not least the complete absence of an atmosphere, this means that the conditions of neither the lunar day nor the lunar night could ever have allowed water to exist in a liquid form on the surface of the moon.
However, I am pleased to see that you have been persuaded of the validity of his arguments.
You make two incorrect assumptions, Sceptical .....
1)“could ever have allowed water to exist in a liquid form on the surface of the moon“. ..... as the Moon transitions between extreme temperature phases at the ice edge at the Poles, surely, even currently, there is liquid water at all times on the surface of our moon evaporating or condensing at this periphery?
Historically, has it been scientifically proven these temperature extremes have been in place for the 1 billion years of alleged rille formation?(Link to data?) ..... and judged to stop water flowing sufficiently to create erosion features?
2) “you have been persuaded of the validity of his arguments” ..... Not quite sure where you got that impression from my Post 88 apology .... clearly wasn’t agreeing 99% of lunar rilles were created by lava ..... See below.
That’s why I made the apology. Because he made the point repeatedly ..... but didn’t make clear the reasoning why astronomers all thought that way .... they could have put that on Page 1 .... luckily that gap in my knowledge of this unusual 13.5 day/night lunar cycle meant I didn’t drop the idea of water erosion, dug out good science I think supports it(more on that in the Footnote below) .... to the point we are now on Page 4 with astronomers (hopefully) slightly ‘concerned’ lava theory may have serious flaws. (That will be the day!)
The ‘lava’ argument is made contrary to geologist’s knowledge that asks awkward questions: “Why no trace of lava residues? ALL residue disappearing into the Mares? Rilles running for hundreds of km as a single often clean cut track? Lava tubes described sustaining impossible widths(in Schroter’s Valley)?..... and very unlikely lengths(hundreds of kms)? ..... then collapsing uniformly, in all cases, along their entire length?”
Astronomers need to give satisfactory answers to these questions .... because 99% of rilles STILL clearly show to the public ‘water erosion’ features followed by evaporation .....
Is it wise to brush aside scientific ‘pointers’ that associate water here(especially evident around Schroter’s Valley - prolofic pyroclast ejecta/beading, high magnesium content, radon gas associated with volcanic spring sources) suggesting vulcanism created significant amounts of lunar water during it’s turbulent years, at sites of large pyroclast eruptions all over the lunar surface, with possibility of water condensate trapped in subterranean lava tubes.
Further evidence shows water remnants as ice in Polar craters (more likely from these sources and polar condensation than icy comets from outer space) - lunar conditions being so ‘clement’ here, the water hasn’t been melted in cyclic temperature fluctuations and stripped away.
Will Astronomers ever get over the BIG hurdle of extreme temperatures, atmospherics and Solar Wind stripping ...... and entertain ‘ooze’ erosion theory?
Gaps in knowledge sometimes allow people to think past problems, get over hurdles(without going into the realms of fantasy) .... maybe this is an instance where looking back over the data can ‘engineer’ astronomers more in line with the photographic/geological realities.
Footnote:
If future Lunar Colonists want an ‘easier ride’ during their stay on the moon, the suggestion is to park their lunar lodge on this more clement Polar perifery where they know water constantly liquifies and freezes - let the climate boil their eggs in the morning, cook their midday meal, and provide ice for their evening cocktails during their long 13.5 days and nights!
Just dug out this data that gives scientific pointers that supports either side of this debate with some validity:
https://lunar-landing.arc.nasa.gov/LLW2018-32
Note:Interesting comment on high water content/pyroclast in this area.
Probably enough water/steam generated to create the biggest pyroclast explosion event on the moon .... and consequently generate the largest erosion canyon on the Moon.
And from the PDF link in the article: https://lunar-landing.arc.nasa.gov/...n_Aristarchus_LandedScienceWorkshop_Final.pdf
Note: The contour map makes the case for lava running into the Mares during the first erosion phase ..... but doesn't explain the fine secondary erosion phase, or controversy whether the Cobra’s Head is a volcanic vent or an angled small meteor puncture releasing a ‘gusher’ from many cracked underground condensate reservoirs damaged by the Aristarchus Meteor hit.
With vulcanism throughout the Solar System creating water scenarios showing similar patterns of flow, ejection and erosion, on planets/moons under similar histories of extremes of temperature and atmosphere, surely it’s time for astronomers to now entertain conditions of historic lunar water erosion.
I presume, before astronomers rejected water erosion theory for lava theory they must have first conducted detailed experiments under laboratory conditions that created and compared water erosion patterns through varied substrates consistent with lunar deposits, explored surface and subsurface erosion scenarios, chemically dissolved erosion scenarios, through hot/cool, ground/air conditions ..... and then compare these results to synthesised moulton rock flow scenarios.
Would be interesting to see a link to these test results, if they exist? ..... (searched but no luck so far).
Last edited:
You dis the scientific community a lot (a lot of astronomers, engineers, geologists etc. in that broad community that have a great deal of knowledge). What have you looked up in their research and found wanting? I expect there is a lot of info out there in peer reviewed information etc.
You mention planets again, how many do you see such erosion on?
You mention planets again, how many do you see such erosion on?
I’m not dissing anybody, just putting out an alternative viewpoint to challenge an established theory. I value the scientists whose work I reference to illustrate this water erosion theory.
My viewpoint is very limited so should be easy to dismantle if it’s flawed. Both sides are trying to put forward arguments with the best resources and references they can muster.
Extreme temperature variations mentioned are a major obstacle to this theory but not insurmountable. Astronomers are free to put the alternative view.
My viewpoint is very limited so should be easy to dismantle if it’s flawed. Both sides are trying to put forward arguments with the best resources and references they can muster.
Extreme temperature variations mentioned are a major obstacle to this theory but not insurmountable. Astronomers are free to put the alternative view.
Last edited:
Wrong way around.
Edit. You need to show your workings out past "I have a hunch" not the scientist in many fields that have worked on this. And I doubt they use wiki and google as primary research tools.
Let me clarify. e.g. You asked why no one had looked at the "dunes" where Apollo 15 were rallying around (post 81). I pointed out they had looked at it and with some seriousness due to wanting to not sink in it when they walked on it. They had not ignored.
Edit 2. Re water else where. I can think of one planet that we can see the effects, at least the tantalising is it or isn't it. Moons such as Enceladus have some amazing potential. Titan has liquid but not water. Where else?
Edit. You need to show your workings out past "I have a hunch" not the scientist in many fields that have worked on this. And I doubt they use wiki and google as primary research tools.
Let me clarify. e.g. You asked why no one had looked at the "dunes" where Apollo 15 were rallying around (post 81). I pointed out they had looked at it and with some seriousness due to wanting to not sink in it when they walked on it. They had not ignored.
Edit 2. Re water else where. I can think of one planet that we can see the effects, at least the tantalising is it or isn't it. Moons such as Enceladus have some amazing potential. Titan has liquid but not water. Where else?
Last edited:
Don’t really understand your problem with the links I’m posting to illustrate the point I am making. 99% the sources are linked to good solid scientific research from reputable websites .... I didn’t say nobody had looked at the dunes and studied them ..... people on this thread were claiming the moon never had a significant atmosphere ..... I questioned how the dunes were formed and smoothed .... no one answered. They still haven’t answered about the complete absence of lava residues ..... even if it ran into the Mares there should be traces.
If people are going to defend lava theory .... dodging the awkward questions doesn’t look good. At least with temperature extremes I’ve made a stab at 2 ways water still flowed ..... either subsurface erosion/dissolving(which could be/have been confirmed by laboratory experimentation) or historically these extremes were not severe enough to stop periodic gushes of erosion.
There are many rilles and erosions that suggest water on other planets + moons. Red Tomatoe’s geyser erosion traces look interesting, Io too ..... anywhere rock liquifies should drive out water/steam, the % depending on substrate composition..... wonder if it’s pyroclast/geyser type forces that are throwing Io’s sulphur so high in the air .... in a similar way to steam geysers on Enceladus. Do you know if there is a water signature in the plumes of Io, 400?
If people are going to defend lava theory .... dodging the awkward questions doesn’t look good. At least with temperature extremes I’ve made a stab at 2 ways water still flowed ..... either subsurface erosion/dissolving(which could be/have been confirmed by laboratory experimentation) or historically these extremes were not severe enough to stop periodic gushes of erosion.
There are many rilles and erosions that suggest water on other planets + moons. Red Tomatoe’s geyser erosion traces look interesting, Io too ..... anywhere rock liquifies should drive out water/steam, the % depending on substrate composition..... wonder if it’s pyroclast/geyser type forces that are throwing Io’s sulphur so high in the air .... in a similar way to steam geysers on Enceladus. Do you know if there is a water signature in the plumes of Io, 400?
What are "lava residues?" You're expecting to see the equivalent of a river delta? Is it at all possible that what you expect to see is buried under lunar dust from subsequent impact ejecta and or lava flows? The entire surface of the moon is rock. Lava is rock. You're looking at rock and saying, effectively, "Where's the rock?"
I haven't researched the dunes (or what appear to be dunes), but one possibility is blast waves. Obviously not atmospheric blast waves, but the kind that occur in a vacuum - rapidly moving impact crater ejecta, expanding hot gasses released when rock is vaporized (by a meteor impact), etc. That kind of material-in-motion is short-lived, but the results can be preserved for a very long time when there is no atmosphere/wind to disturb it.
As to the notion that a meteor impact punctured the lunar surface and let loose a gusher (of water), as if there's so much subterranean water that it would spurt like a punctured citrus fruit... Hey, I'm not enough of an expert to say that it's impossible, but.... Meteor impacts tend to generate a lot of heat. That heat can vaporize rock. Since water vaporizes at a far lower temperature than rock, it seems pretty likely (to me) that whatever water was in the immediate impact zone would go from solid to vapor in an instant. If rock was melted, the in-rushing "flood" of melted subsurface ice would have continued to vaporize for quite a while after the rock cooled to a solid state. Likely, that cooled rock would not be very porous, effectively cauterizing the wound. (I'm explaining this in terms of an impact crater rather than a volcanic crater because the OP thinks the "cobra head" looks more like an impact crater than a volcanic crater, not because I personally have an opinion one way or the other on the matter.)
OK, I do not pretend to have the expertise to say this is what would actually happen; it's just stitched together from what little I do know. The only difference between me and someone else who shall go nameless is that I am not going to try to persuade the rest of the world that my off-the-cuff explanation is correct. It just seems plausible to me. I'm taking my "plausible" explanation and throwing it against another "plausible" explanation. Hopefully, they'll mutually self-destruct - blather and anti-blather.
And what's all this about "astronomers" being wrong about the moon, because they're not geologists? The first scientist on the moon (Harrison Schmitt) was a geologist. NASA (and every other space agency and research institute in the world) know what kinds of scientists are needed to analyze lunar and extra-planetary phenomena. They don't send an astronomer to do a planetary geologist's job. Further, the study of those extraterrestrial phenomena requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Teams of experts, not lone dilettantes.
But yeah, one "genius" in a room with a computer and an internet connection is capable of turning all that on its head. It's a classic delusion. Who wouldn't want to be the next Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein? The myth of the brilliant iconoclast vs. the entrenched establishment is quite romantic, but the people that I named dedicated their lives to study and scientific method. They didn't shoot from the hip with the first notion that popped into their minds.
Here's a good read on the topic from Marshall Shepherd at Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...ative-or-conspiracy-theories-more-than-women/
I haven't researched the dunes (or what appear to be dunes), but one possibility is blast waves. Obviously not atmospheric blast waves, but the kind that occur in a vacuum - rapidly moving impact crater ejecta, expanding hot gasses released when rock is vaporized (by a meteor impact), etc. That kind of material-in-motion is short-lived, but the results can be preserved for a very long time when there is no atmosphere/wind to disturb it.
As to the notion that a meteor impact punctured the lunar surface and let loose a gusher (of water), as if there's so much subterranean water that it would spurt like a punctured citrus fruit... Hey, I'm not enough of an expert to say that it's impossible, but.... Meteor impacts tend to generate a lot of heat. That heat can vaporize rock. Since water vaporizes at a far lower temperature than rock, it seems pretty likely (to me) that whatever water was in the immediate impact zone would go from solid to vapor in an instant. If rock was melted, the in-rushing "flood" of melted subsurface ice would have continued to vaporize for quite a while after the rock cooled to a solid state. Likely, that cooled rock would not be very porous, effectively cauterizing the wound. (I'm explaining this in terms of an impact crater rather than a volcanic crater because the OP thinks the "cobra head" looks more like an impact crater than a volcanic crater, not because I personally have an opinion one way or the other on the matter.)
OK, I do not pretend to have the expertise to say this is what would actually happen; it's just stitched together from what little I do know. The only difference between me and someone else who shall go nameless is that I am not going to try to persuade the rest of the world that my off-the-cuff explanation is correct. It just seems plausible to me. I'm taking my "plausible" explanation and throwing it against another "plausible" explanation. Hopefully, they'll mutually self-destruct - blather and anti-blather.
And what's all this about "astronomers" being wrong about the moon, because they're not geologists? The first scientist on the moon (Harrison Schmitt) was a geologist. NASA (and every other space agency and research institute in the world) know what kinds of scientists are needed to analyze lunar and extra-planetary phenomena. They don't send an astronomer to do a planetary geologist's job. Further, the study of those extraterrestrial phenomena requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Teams of experts, not lone dilettantes.
But yeah, one "genius" in a room with a computer and an internet connection is capable of turning all that on its head. It's a classic delusion. Who wouldn't want to be the next Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, or Einstein? The myth of the brilliant iconoclast vs. the entrenched establishment is quite romantic, but the people that I named dedicated their lives to study and scientific method. They didn't shoot from the hip with the first notion that popped into their minds.
Here's a good read on the topic from Marshall Shepherd at Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...ative-or-conspiracy-theories-more-than-women/
One of last links mention ppm concentration of water was small, and then there is that dreaded pressure. Remember the trick question in Physics class? What temperature does water boil at? Us young un's at the time, 100 deg C without a doubt. Everyone knew that, obvious. What a silly question we all tittered.
We were right and a lot wrong, only at sea level, at a certain pressure. We then get an experiment with a bell jar and petri dish of water and a vacuum pump and see that it changes (one experiment for you). Such a pump I understand could not get down to the levels of the Moon vacuum. Mars also has an atmosphere but at such a low pressure you would asphyxiate even if the right proportions of gases that we need existed. Flowing water on mars at the moment? Back to sublimation. I understand that what atmosphere the Moon could have had would have been less than what mars is now?
Therefore I am just trying to understand it and your links need a leap of faith, for me, to pick that up. Not being a scientist in any field but interested in such. Moon landings are something I think they were amazing feats of technology, human endeavour and understanding (keeping politics out of it for now). Byproduct is there was and still is a lot of research into the surface and formation, though that would undoubtably have happened anyway. They also brought a load back, and there is water detectable in the Genesis rock. They also brought back core samples and a wide selection of other samples, the resources are online for you to look at part of the research.
Here is a suggestion, uninformed as I am, if the returned samples of the regolith, let's not call them dunes for now, those sample show a ragged jagged affair, (you can look it up online with images of samples) if I look at sand in the dunes local to me, I see a mix of sharps and smooth, sharpes are recent stuff, shells etc. The smooth are the ones that are rounded by water action. The way that regolith is made up could indicate that it is widely distributed from many parts of the moon, just look at [Edit>] Tycho. Not Clavius, apols. The Apollo sites could have picked up regolith that came from a great distance and been mixed up by many impacts.
Io. Of the top of me head, last I read on Io it was and is a sulphurous hell hole in orbital resonance with moons and its parent that squash and expand the hell out of it and heat it up a lot (like a squash ball). Juno is the most recent visitor, Cassini was a great interest over the years as is the Mars Rovers (phone home soon.....). Venus, one theory goes, has flipped its crust a few times and we cannot visually see the surface and the pressure there is silly high. Mercury a tad close to the sun and no atmosphere. Titan has liquid but it aint water..... and Enceladus ( a muse of Cassini) provides a possible example of water geysers if it happened on the moon, cryo volcanoes. Just wondering where
comes from to hold up flowing water on the moon?
Somewhere, for the uninitiated me, the link between flowing water having time to forge out rilles needs to be defined past "could it happen".
Bit confusing. Sorry.
Last edited:
I don't think this is the place to try to be Einstein, this isn't even a scientific forum! ….. people of all types drop in over a coffee break, I throw around a few ignorant half baked radical ideas that push a few buttons …. it gets the discussion going …. who knows, in all the banter and scientific links produced, we all pick up a nugget of info here and there, some dots might be joined and maybe, rarely, some people might come at some research at a slightly different angle, something new might pop out …. but don't hold your breath! I wasn't expecting people to be overly concerned over any comment made here. Just get stuck in and throw ideas around.Nobody knows who drops in, you can be as anonymous as you like here and say what you like within forum rules, you can make mistakes, crash and burn, just be interesting …. and leave your Ivory Tower reputations for scientific forums where everyone knows who you are, bows in deference and tugs their forelocks. If Einstein, Galileo and George Romero et al was in the room, the discussion wouldn't be conducted any differently …. the conclusion might be more interesting though.
If the lava cuts underneath and ejecta blows in and smooths, many lunar examples seem strangely very narrow and long, running for hundreds of kms ….. surely lava would cool and solidify at half that distance and we would see a pile up of residue at the end ….. possibly covered mounds?
[Considering answer to your points, 400, shortly]
Think I mentioned in an earlier post the discussion with the experienced astronomer at the Bluedot Festival about the Aristarchus impact? She made the same point you are making about heat, rock melt and vaporisation. Thinking later, I thought this impact was far enough away from the Cobra's head not to vaporise everything(!) but just fracture by vibration the network of lava tubes nearby filled with condensed water accumulated as Herodotus died and cooled. Further condensation processes continuing after the Aristarchus impact cooled might have sustain water production and flow as steam pressure in the chambers worked to eject sufficient water volumes during 'lunar night/day transition phases to create the erosion observed.
Most rilles on the moon seem to be an erosion through loose ejecta, if the the erosion is on the surface shouldn't some residue fragments be visible?
If the lava cuts underneath and ejecta blows in and smooths, many lunar examples seem strangely very narrow and long, running for hundreds of kms ….. surely lava would cool and solidify at half that distance and we would see a pile up of residue at the end ….. possibly covered mounds?
Yes, I read an interesting article suggesting something similar, but it seemed to be such a 'long shot'(like ice comets filling polar lunar craters with water!) …. you'd need alot of 'blast waves' considering the sheer number and size of 'dunes' on the moon! Easier to suggest periods of weak atmosphere and temp fluctuations creating wind which just blew the stuff into those shapes, and smoothed the 'sand' in and around the rilles - coincidentally also helps give water ooze theory a better chance to make an 'impression'!
[Considering answer to your points, 400, shortly]
Since the atmosphere was lost over 3 billion years ago, the temperature of the moon has been pretty stable, there is nothing to change its cycle. We've had volcanic activity, we've had some spectacular comet or meteor strikes, but basically the sun, moon and earth dynamic has been the same since the atmopshere went away. I still think you don't understand how the moon's 27 earth day long day works, so I am going to try and explain it like they taught me at college, which is where I first understood it, and hope that helps.
First of all forget about the dark side of the moon, its a good album but has almost nothing to do with reality. A better description of the moon is earthside and farside or earthside and non-earthside. Everyone on the planet no matter where they are sees basically the same half of the moon ALWAYS. Thats the earthside ok? The other side is the farside, they both get the exact same amount of sunlight. Every day the arc what gets the sun creeps across the moon a little more then 13 degrees, after 13.5 days we get 13.5 x 13.3 or 179.55 degrees or basically 1/2 way around (180 degrees is obviously 1/2 of a globe). When we are looking at a full moon, the earthside is totally lit and the farside is totally dark, when we have no visable moon, the farside is fully lit. One thing that affects this slightly is the slight (about 1.5 degree) inclination of the north pole towards the sun, which allows for a small area near the north pole on a set of mountains to always be in the sun and large area (at the bottom of a bunch of meteor strikes near both poles) to always be in the dark (this is where it is likely large areas of frozen water can be found). At the equator the temperature swings from -280 F to +270 F, at the bottom of the craters, some of the coldest temperatures in the solar system have been measured by LRO -396 in the south pole and -415 at the north pole, the only close temperatures to those are from the New Horizons probe when it measured the temps on Pluto. For half of the time the moon has the sun on it, that solar radiation destroys water, so once it gets light, if there was water of any kind, dissassociation begins and its heating up and will no longer be liquid, its a killer one-two punch and just can't survive it as a bunch of liquid flowing for millions of years to form the Grand Canyon of the moon.
Mares were called mares (ie Seas in Latin), because they were believed to be water, and the Rille were long canals that flowed water from the mountains to the sea. However eventually we figured out the
weren't seas, we figured out they were basalt (so Volcanic, right?) and then with the apollo missions and the LRO and other efforts have realized the Rille were created by lava not water, because of temperature and radiation makes flowing water on the moon forming HUGE canyon impossile. I believe LRO has the drop from the end of the Rille to the Oceanus Procellarum as like 500 feet, and if you look at the pictures here, your small picture makes it look way smoother then it really is.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/108
Probably not because its not a good theory. One good lava flow (or two since we have really two Rille making this up) creates the Rille, your theory is Millions of years of flowing water in an area that water can't flow, so yeah, its hard do jump over the theory that can't work when you have a theory that explains everything and has been proven (at least with regards to the Hadley Rille) with core samples and actual physical investication.
Actually they probably should camp in the mountains near the north pole, where they can have solar panels working every hour of the 27 earth days that make up the Moon day. Plus lots of water at the bottom of the craters.Footnote:
If future Lunar Colonists want an ‘easier ride’ during their stay on the moon, the suggestion is to park their lunar lodge on this more clement Polar perifery where they know water constantly liquifies and freezes - let the climate boil their eggs in the morning, cook their midday meal, and provide ice for their evening cocktails during their long 13.5 days and nights!
This
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/291
says that the Aristarchus Meteor was only about 175 million years ago, so its not causing a gusher that created the Grand Canyon of the Moon (ie the Rille we are talking about).
-Tig
[doublepost=1536093374][/doublepost]
I declare your post OFFICIALLY best post of the thread, not sure since I have both done and taught that experiment, why I didn't come up with that comment but it is completely true. According to my CRC (and the internet), in a vacuum, water boils at 7 degrees celsius. So we aren't talking about the time it takes to go from 0 degrees to 100 degrees celsius for you to have running water on the moon to carve the Rille, we are talking the time it takes with all the radiation destroying the water as it happens for the water to go from 0 degrees to 7 degrees, because at 7 degrees it boils away, even if the radiation has not destroyed it. How long under that big hot sun with no atmosphere do you thing it takes to go from 0 degrees to 7 degrees Dubdrifter?
-Tig (with help from 400)
Thanks for all the detail, (400 and Tigger11)throws up some interesting problems for my theory+questions!
Firstly....
I get a bit uneasy when astronomers talk definitive timelines - 3 billion years of stability, rille creation in last 1billion years, Aristarchus strike 175 million years ago. Is it possible to be that accurate with such limited numbers of samples?(and not from this area, which questions whether the meteor strike and the Schroter’s Valley rille estimate can be accurate?).
You’ve seen the data Tig, and how it’s measured ..... how confident are you these numbers are good? .....
It must be quite difficult to accurately calculate lunar timelines when lunar factors like solar wind, volcanic activity, atmospheric variables, gravity, vacuum, magnetic field, lunar day/night cycles, condensation, atmospheric ‘wind’ erosion, blasts(?) that allegedly formed dunes, ice meteor strikes(!) etc etc ..... all affect deposition rates .... which are all so different to Earth’s. It’s probably a completely new ball game up there, a minefield of confusion when reading these layers in core samples and rock strata.
Guessing you have to interpret under a completely new set of rules ..... and probably look for (thinking aloud, off the cuff)significant historic radiation events that hit both the earth+moon that have written a signature in rocks/layers in both bodies .... Earth’s signature date being known probably gives clues to the datum points through lunar evolution and thus a rough idea of lunar deposition rates related to local geographical/volcanic factors - Still a difficult estimation to make with so many variables.
I’m getting mixed signals here!
1)One minute I’m told there was no atmosphere, never has been, ..... then I read scientific papers that say the moon once had an atmosphere, and even has a much weaker atmosphere today ..... but am told ... it’s too weak and insignificant to allow water to flow and create your rilles, they were created later.
2)Next minute, it’s temperature extremes from the lunar day/night cycle with no leeway between transitions from -270 to + 270 to allow any cyclic erosion when oozing out of the ground possibly pre-heated, to flow during dawn/dusk more temperate periods. When pics show 99% of rilles(but not Schroter) could have been formed in those windows of flow opportunity.
3)And now it’s the dreaded vacuum that is now so virulent that between 0-7 degrees all my flowing erosion water is gone, evaporated into space ..... at an instant ..... even at very low temperatures!
— Q1)How can you have the physical effects of a strong vacuum boiling my water when a weak atmosphere survives around the moon and allows gases and even water micro drops, be detected condensing on the surface when the sun goes down?
— Q2)When water was liquid/vapour to freeze flat in craters around the Poles, how come it survived long enough to refreeze when the lunar day is so long? .... surely between 0-7degrees as a liquid, the vacuum effect would boil it away?
It’s difficult to propose a theory when the goalposts keep shifting! .... if you nudged all these factors and gave me a bit of leeway in all these calculations ..... Then it could make moon rille water erosion a reality .... or even a possibility ..... and make the pictures of impacts(a key factor) and ‘ooze’ theory match perfectly.
Besides, other bodies in our Solar System, well outside our Goldilocks zone, have had similar, possibly more extreme, vacuum/temperature demands during their histories ..... and they manage to show signs of surface water flow+erosion .... especially from geysers.
Cut our volcanic Moon some slack ..... let it ooze and dribble when punctured .... just like the rest of our Solar System buddies!
For fans of the tv show Big Bang Theory ...... maybe Sheldon will be wearing this new T-shirt shortly .....
” Moon ooooooze - Mmmm, now that’s a novelty! “
[I think I best leave the scriptwriters to polish that up a bit!]
Firstly....
I get a bit uneasy when astronomers talk definitive timelines - 3 billion years of stability, rille creation in last 1billion years, Aristarchus strike 175 million years ago. Is it possible to be that accurate with such limited numbers of samples?(and not from this area, which questions whether the meteor strike and the Schroter’s Valley rille estimate can be accurate?).
You’ve seen the data Tig, and how it’s measured ..... how confident are you these numbers are good? .....
It must be quite difficult to accurately calculate lunar timelines when lunar factors like solar wind, volcanic activity, atmospheric variables, gravity, vacuum, magnetic field, lunar day/night cycles, condensation, atmospheric ‘wind’ erosion, blasts(?) that allegedly formed dunes, ice meteor strikes(!) etc etc ..... all affect deposition rates .... which are all so different to Earth’s. It’s probably a completely new ball game up there, a minefield of confusion when reading these layers in core samples and rock strata.
Guessing you have to interpret under a completely new set of rules ..... and probably look for (thinking aloud, off the cuff)significant historic radiation events that hit both the earth+moon that have written a signature in rocks/layers in both bodies .... Earth’s signature date being known probably gives clues to the datum points through lunar evolution and thus a rough idea of lunar deposition rates related to local geographical/volcanic factors - Still a difficult estimation to make with so many variables.
I’m getting mixed signals here!
1)One minute I’m told there was no atmosphere, never has been, ..... then I read scientific papers that say the moon once had an atmosphere, and even has a much weaker atmosphere today ..... but am told ... it’s too weak and insignificant to allow water to flow and create your rilles, they were created later.
2)Next minute, it’s temperature extremes from the lunar day/night cycle with no leeway between transitions from -270 to + 270 to allow any cyclic erosion when oozing out of the ground possibly pre-heated, to flow during dawn/dusk more temperate periods. When pics show 99% of rilles(but not Schroter) could have been formed in those windows of flow opportunity.
3)And now it’s the dreaded vacuum that is now so virulent that between 0-7 degrees all my flowing erosion water is gone, evaporated into space ..... at an instant ..... even at very low temperatures!
— Q1)How can you have the physical effects of a strong vacuum boiling my water when a weak atmosphere survives around the moon and allows gases and even water micro drops, be detected condensing on the surface when the sun goes down?
— Q2)When water was liquid/vapour to freeze flat in craters around the Poles, how come it survived long enough to refreeze when the lunar day is so long? .... surely between 0-7degrees as a liquid, the vacuum effect would boil it away?
It’s difficult to propose a theory when the goalposts keep shifting! .... if you nudged all these factors and gave me a bit of leeway in all these calculations ..... Then it could make moon rille water erosion a reality .... or even a possibility ..... and make the pictures of impacts(a key factor) and ‘ooze’ theory match perfectly.
Besides, other bodies in our Solar System, well outside our Goldilocks zone, have had similar, possibly more extreme, vacuum/temperature demands during their histories ..... and they manage to show signs of surface water flow+erosion .... especially from geysers.
Cut our volcanic Moon some slack ..... let it ooze and dribble when punctured .... just like the rest of our Solar System buddies!
For fans of the tv show Big Bang Theory ...... maybe Sheldon will be wearing this new T-shirt shortly .....
” Moon ooooooze - Mmmm, now that’s a novelty! “
[I think I best leave the scriptwriters to polish that up a bit!]
Goalposts never moved. You need to see them first.
- Status