Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon

[Tigger11]

I am going to write two posts, (though the software here may jam them together), one will just explain pressure vs gravity vs magnetic field, and the other will hopefully answer your questions. Ok pressure or atmospheric pressure is caused by the column of material above you pushing down. At sea level that is 14.7 PSI (Pounds per square inch), its about 1/2 that much at the base camp for K2 (20K over sea level). On the other hand, every 33 feet you go under water increases the pressure on you by 1 Atmosphere, so at 100 feet down you are feeling the pressure of 3 additional atmospheres (4 total), its part of the reason you have to use mixed gases in scuba dives over 132 ft (4 atmospheres down), instead of just compressed air we use for shallower dives. Ok how does gravity affect this? Gravity is what keeps the atmosphere around the planet, it keeps it from flying away, but it doesn't cause the pressure, the pressure is caused by the materials in the atmosphere above you. Gravity on the moon has likely been the same since before it lost its atmosphere, it used to have an atmosphere, and then the solar winds destroyed it like they did on Mars. And now to our third topic Magnetic Field, again Magnetic Field doesn't make the pressure, its basically a force field to protect the planet from radiation and other effects from the Sun. The moons magnetic field wasnt powerful to protect its atmosphere and it was eventually warn away, same thing has happened to Mars, where its current atmosphere is much less then what it had a millions of years ago. That is why I said changes to the Magnetic Field don't affect the pressure, because you have to have the materials actually in an atmosphere above you pushing down to get pressure, so increasing a magnetic field without putting 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of material into the air and making it stay in the atmosphere doesnt get you the 1% (0.147 PSI) atmosphere required to allow water to flow between 0-7 degrees. Without at least a 1% atmosphere, we have no liquid water, so no water flowing.
-Tig
[doublepost=1537473264][/doublepost]

I was about to throw in the towel and admit error in my interpretation of Prinz and see the possibility of lava the most likely cutting agent in most rille scenarios ..... but then saw a few things that didn’t quite add up in the astronomer’s argument. (Sorry, Tig .... I know we all want to lay this to rest and move on!)

1) Surely Prinz is not an impact crater filled with Mares lava, but an old dead volcanic crater, like Herodotus? ...... but maybe earlier, hence the crumbling rims,(see pic) .... which helped create the local Mare? It blew it’s pyroclast head off throwing loose debris over the area cut by the Rimae. It then filled with liquid lava in its death throes.

I don't think anyone has said prinz is an impact crater, in fact in post 121 I said it was a collapsed volcano like CRATER LAKE, NGOROGORO or MT ST HELENS. Also I wouldnt bet heavy on it being dead, but thats the topic for another conversation.

2) Is the photo in Post 108 showing a cut through solid basalt by a mini volcano(Vera?) with strangely no traces of residues or mini crater lip .... or is it a minor meteor impact fracture of a Prinz lava tube full of water condensate running through ‘sandy’ deposits similar to Hadley’s Rille?

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=i...0j0i13j33i10.jcYTmTnAxN0#imgrc=-Reb9JnmyJMylM:

It depends on how loose the local ejecta really is - to make an informed choice.

Again for the 34th time, what do actually think is going to be found as residue of a lava flow over volcanic basalt. Its a simple question, you bring us residue every single post, and yet you can't tell us what you think we should be seeing that tells you (and only you) that its not a lava flow. And hot lava melts channels through rock all the time, its kind of the thing lava does so sure there is loose materials in the path of the lava, but we know it also burned a path into the rock, we see the strata on the sides of the channel from the LROC pics, thats not stacks of Ejecta thats good ole Volcanic rock.

3) If astronomers are putting the creation of the Mares much earlier than rille creation ..... (to tie in with the period the moon had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mars) why do they insist rilles are lava formed, when most intense volcanic activity had died down by then, the Mares had cooled and seemless flow of rille lava into the Mares wouldn’t have been possible without showing visible residues?).

I am not going to answer another residue question until you define residue. In the Rille we were originally discussing, we know it was formed AFTER the plateau it was occurs on was pushed up. Every event on the Plateau is from after the Plateau's creation. We know the last event in the Meteor strike 175 Million years ago because the ejecta from it has not bleached to same color as the rest of the rock yet and it can seen over the Rille's the Volcano's etc. I almost think you have the sand problem stuck in your head, with the mares comments there, and like the sand on a beach the rock on the Mare is not all from the same lava flow.

Tig theorises rilles cutting through basalt, my focus is those that cut through loose pyroclast ejecta similar to Hadley Rille .... and I prefer the odd ones even astronomers are finding it difficult to nail to lava theory. (See paragraph 3) :
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-362/ch6.1.htm

“In some sinuous channels a small valley has formed within a larger valley, indicating at least two episodes of valley formation. Other meandering channels do not start or stop in a crater-they are formed on lava plains that are so flat it is difficult to tell the direction of flow. Still other channels have formed on mountainsides covered by hummocky ejecta thrown outward from major impact basins; these rilles may have been formed by some process other than lava flows.”

I notice they don't say water, because they think its volcanic, because all the rock found here is volcanic, the issue is its caused by something other then flowing lava, like the collapse of lava tubes or the other ways we talked about could possibly be ways that some of the Rille were created. Your Rille, the one you started this thread with was caused by a Lava flow, all of them were created by some form of Vulcanism.

Mmmm .... maybe water? .... if 0-7 degrees wasn’t such a big hurdle!
Strange Tig brands my theory a silly Youtube fantasy ...... yet this conundrum is on a NASA webpage .... so at least some astronomers are still ‘not totally happy’ with lava theory.

Its a hurdle you don't seem to understand. You have to create an atmosphere on the moon AND THEN you get 0-7 degrees, for the last 3 billion years, ice turns to vapor directly at -67 degrees Celsius.

Although I appreciate the atmospheric numbers Tigger highlighted in Post 101 ..... just wondered how they can be so definite about the historic figures going back billions of years? ...... And if one or two numbers in those calculations are skewed by the findings in the Nature magazine article referenced below in 2015..... how much will that affect calculations of lunar atmospheric pressure during rille creation?

NONE. That was easy. See previous post to find out why.

When the sun’s rays penetrate blanket layers of different gases and dust particulate from pyroclastic lunar volcanic eruptions ..... temperature differentials will surely generate changes in atmospheric pressure?

Again, NO.

The Nobel Prize winning question is: ...... Is that sufficient to upset 0-7 degree Triple Point for 1 billion years, and allow water to erode some of the Moon’s rilles and create exciting possibilities for lunar colonisation?

AND FINALLY NO. And your theory means nothing to lunar colonization, current estimates have between 100 Million and 1 Billion metric tons of water at each of the poles. That is more then enough for colonization.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

And now to our third topic Magnetic Field, again Magnetic Field doesn't make the pressure, its basically a force field to protect the planet from radiation and other effects from the Sun. The moons magnetic field wasnt powerful to protect its atmosphere and it was eventually warn away, same thing has happened to Mars, where its current atmosphere is much less then what it had a millions of years ago. That is why I said changes to the Magnetic Field don't affect the pressure, because you have to have the materials actually in an atmosphere above you pushing down to get pressure, so increasing a magnetic field without putting 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of material into the air and making it stay in the atmosphere doesnt get you the 1% (0.147 PSI) atmosphere required to allow water to flow between 0-7 degrees. Without at least a 1% atmosphere, we have no liquid water, so no water flowing.

But without a strong magnetic field, the Earth wouldn’t retain it’s atmosphere, protect us from solar wind stripping, retain the gas and dust from eruptions, create density layering and differential temperature variations that give us 14psi. So surely the magnetic field, in a roundabout way, does make the atmospheric pressure!?

When the moon was very active 3 billion years ago, wasn’t there enough pyroclast activity to put more than enough lbs of material+gases in the air?
Is your figure, which seems to be increasing as this debate progresses, totally out of reach knowing how active the moon once was? .... Surely there was also enough iron core movement to create a strong enough magnetic field to retain this thicker lunar atmosphere for long enough to create a decent pressure to push your restrictive 0-7 degrees possibly even wider? .....

Also please don’t forget the protective blanket effect created by the Earth’s stronger magnetic field enveloping the moon 1-1.5 billion years ago, when the moon’s own field was waning. You conveniently ignored this data ..... don’t you feel it is significant?

I don't think anyone has said prinz is an impact crater,

Er.... read it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinz_(crater) ..... the first sentence ..... but astronomers/anyone can edit Wikipedia .... so I may have to dig out a new reference tomorrow!

Again for the 34th time, what do actually think is going to be found as residue of a lava flow over volcanic basalt.

Hadley and Schroter’s Valley appear to be filled will loose pyroclast ..... Prinz now being confirmed a giant volcanic crater, I naturally assumed it was loose pyroclast the Prinz rilles were cutting through, not solid basalt. Am I mistaken, or is it a bit of both?

Every event on the Plateau is from after the Plateau's creation. We know the last event in the Meteor strike 175 Million years ago because the ejecta from it has not bleached to same color as the rest of the rock yet and it can seen over the Rille's the Volcano's etc.

Maybe we shouldn’t be arguing lava or water .... lunar rille creation, especially Schroter’s Valley, could be explained by both elements being 2 phased - depending on substrate - now I’ve ‘engineered’ a possible(?) scenario around Triple Point!
Take this photo to the moon ..... stand in SV and see the comparison!
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=i...i13j0i8i7i30.AlPRetVbqSQ#imgrc=fhRfsY1K3SFwzM:

(P.S. Er .... Am now ok with lava flows that taper and narrow - but still like to see some ‘residue’ at the end .... defining that as lumpy lava bits - not perfectly smooth, non-wrinkly formations like Rima Prinz 1)

I notice they don't say water, because they think its volcanic, because all the rock found here is volcanic, the issue is its caused by something other then flowing lava, like the collapse of lava tubes or the other ways we talked about could possibly be ways that some of the Rille were created. Your Rille, the one you started this thread with was caused by a Lava flow, all of them were created by some form of Vulcanism.

Come on, do lava tubes always collapse evenly, uniformly, along their whole length? Water ooze works better for me. Still alone on that? Anyone else reading this prepared to stick their neck above the parapet?

Its a hurdle you don't seem to understand. You have to create an atmosphere on the moon AND THEN you get 0-7 degrees, for the last 3 billion years, ice turns to vapor directly at -67 degrees Celsius.

No, I don’t .... because the hurdle gets strangely higher each time you mention it! I thought I was wrestling with 0-7 degrees one minute when Triple Point was first mentioned .... now I’ve suddenly got -67 degrees to cope with. You astronomers are killing me! ...... how come conditions on the moon have changed so much on the surface of the moon .... during this debate?
No wonder water can’t flow on the lunar surface ‘under these conditions’ ..... it’s a wonder it can flow anywhere but Earth under present astronomer restrictions. The SETI guys should give up looking for life evolving on Mars ..... the window is too effin narrow now! Complex organic molecules? Forget it!

AND FINALLY NO. And your theory means nothing to lunar colonization, current estimates have between 100 Million and 1 Billion metric tons of water at each of the poles. That is more then enough for colonization.

Would be nice if they could put some sun block on and explore Schroter’s Valley, Aristarchus and Prinz Rimae, setting up lunar safari tours between the three locations ...... after sticking a spiked drinking draw in a Herodotus lava tube full of Volvic condensate. Much more interesting than being at the boring Poles!
When I’m long dead .... you’ll be thanking me for pushing lunar tourism to the equitorial regions ..... just don’t blame me if lunar visitor skin cancer rates go sky high. And tourists fried to 170+degrees C are not my responsibility either.

 

[400]

^^^^
How hot do you think it is a few yards off the surface of the moon?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Would be nice if they could put some sun block on and explore Schroter’s Valley, Aristarchus and Prinz Rimae, setting up lunar safari tours between the three locations ...... after sticking a spiked drinking draw in a Herodotus lava tube full of Volvic condensate. Much more interesting than being at the boring Poles!
When I’m long dead .... you’ll be thanking me for pushing lunar tourism to the equitorial regions ..... just don’t blame me if lunar visitor skin cancer rates go sky high. And tourists fried to 170+degrees C are not my responsibility either.

The only way those lunar tourists will need sun block is if the terraforming crews succeed in creating an Earth-normal atmosphere that moderates temperatures and solar radiation to something tolerable to Earthlings. Otherwise, SPF 2000-rated space suits and mirrored helmet visors will still be required by the tour operators' insurance companies (just as whitewater rafting guide services may be required to supply life jackets, helmets, and wet suits to all participants).

I'm not sure why you think the poles are boring - I'm far more interested in visiting Earth's polar regions than I am in (again) seeing our tropics and deserts. To each their own. However, I'm sure the cost of transporting water from pole to equator will be relatively low in the big scheme of things. The lower gravity and zero air resistance means the fuel costs for operating sub-orbital water tankers will be pretty low - toss a chunk of ice into the engine's reaction chamber, expose it to vacuum, and force the expanding gasses through a jet nozzle.

 

[Tigger11]

But without a strong magnetic field, the Earth wouldn’t retain it’s atmosphere, protect us from solar wind stripping, retain the gas and dust from eruptions, create density layering and differential temperature variations that give us 14psi. So surely the magnetic field, in a roundabout way, does make the atmospheric pressure!?

Again you are confusing Magnetic Field and Gravity. The Magnetic field protects us from solar winds stripping effect, all the rest of the things you mention have nothing to do with Magnetic field.

When the moon was very active 3 billion years ago, wasn’t there enough pyroclast activity to put more than enough lbs of material+gases in the air?
Is your figure, which seems to be increasing as this debate progresses, totally out of reach knowing how active the moon once was? .... Surely there was also enough iron core movement to create a strong enough magnetic field to retain this thicker lunar atmosphere for long enough to create a decent pressure to push your restrictive 0-7 degrees possibly even wider? .....

I have not changed the number for the atmosphere at all, I am in fact insulted that you are implying I have. I literally go back to message 106, where I showed you how I calculated the number, and copy and paste it every time. The number is 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs, that is how much material needs to be in the Atmosphere of the moon to give it a 1% of Earth Atmosphere (0.147 PSI). At that atmosphere water is liquid from 0 degrees to 7 degrees Celsius, higher than that its water vapor, lower then that its ice. The moon lost its magnetic field and then its atmosphere was stripped away by solar winds, the volcanoes couldn't eject enough material to keep up with the solar winds and the atmosphere eventually became what we have now. Its what is happening on Mars. It takes that much material in the Atmosphere for 0-7 degrees and as it clearly pointed out in message 101 and 106

Also please don’t forget the protective blanket effect created by the Earth’s stronger magnetic field enveloping the moon 1-1.5 billion years ago, when the moon’s own field was waning. You conveniently ignored this data ..... don’t you feel it is significant?

No, because the moon had no atmosphere then to be protected by the Earth's magnetic field, if I believed that the stronger field now suddenly protected the moon completely, which I do not believe it would, but I have not had myself or my computer do the Gaussians on it.

Hadley and Schroter’s Valley appear to be filled will loose pyroclast ..... Prinz now being confirmed a giant volcanic crater, I naturally assumed it was loose pyroclast the Prinz rilles were cutting through, not solid basalt. Am I mistaken, or is it a bit of both?

There is moondust virtually everywhere on the moon, the issue is that if the Rille were cut through loose sand (ie what you are suggesting), they wouldnt be as defined as they are, they would lose shape the same thing that happens if any liquid (water, lava, brine) cut through a sand on earth vs wearing through a rock, if the Grand Canyon had flowed through sand, it wouldnt still be there as a sight to see, it would have collapsed long before it got as deep as it has.

Maybe we shouldn’t be arguing lava or water .... lunar rille creation, especially Schroter’s Valley, could be explained by both elements being 2 phased - depending on substrate - now I’ve ‘engineered’ a possible(?) scenario around Triple Point!

No, you have gotten silly again. Liquid water and liquid rock can't get mixed together. With the current atmosphere on the moon there is no liquid water, even with 1% of earths atmosphere, a condition that hasnt existed for over 3 Billion years, liquid water exists from 0-7 degrees, while lava is 100s of degrees, that means no liquid water as part of your lava.

Take this photo to the moon ..... stand in SV and see the comparison!
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=i...i13j0i8i7i30.AlPRetVbqSQ#imgrc=fhRfsY1K3SFwzM:

Yes it shows you that is was caused by a flowing liquid, then you realize what liquid can flow on the moon in the last billion years, Lava, ok and the Rille starts at a volcano, and ends in a Mare, and gee the samples from the only Rille we have samples from are Volcanic rock, wow, I bet that lava formed the channel. See thats real science, I didnt have to make up an atmosphere 1 billion years ago that there is no evidence of. I didn't have to explain how water would flow for 120 miles at a temperature above boiling on Earth with a much greater atmosphere. I didnt have to explain how millions of gallons water got to the cobras head to spout out of it. Lava comes from volcano, flows downhill, pours out on the largest lava sea on the Moon.

(P.S. Er .... Am now ok with lava flows that taper and narrow - but still like to see some ‘residue’ at the end .... defining that as lumpy lava bits - not perfectly smooth, non-wrinkly formations like Rima Prinz 1)

I hate that we are talking about new Rille's again, but Rima Prinz is the source of the lava, not its endpoint, and it looks alot like our current Hawaiian activity after its collapse, of course after a billion years ago, its got alot of moon dust on it from the meteors.

Come on, do lava tubes always collapse evenly, uniformly, along their whole length? Water ooze works better for me. Still alone on that? Anyone else reading this prepared to stick their neck above the parapet?

This is such a wrong comment I dont know what to say. The Rille are not even or uniform across their whole length so I dont know why you think the lava tubes have collapsed in such a manner, and SV is not a collapsed lava tube its a lava flow from the volcano to the lava sea.

No, I don’t .... because the hurdle gets strangely higher each time you mention it! I thought I was wrestling with 0-7 degrees one minute when Triple Point was first mentioned .... now I’ve suddenly got -67 degrees to cope with. You astronomers are killing me! ...... how come conditions on the moon have changed so much on the surface of the moon .... during this debate?

Now you are making up things again. Message 96 we get 400 talking about Pressure and boiling point. Message 98 I point out that at 1% of the Earth's atmosphere that water boils at 7 degrees Celsius. Then message 101, I list earth, Mars, Moon (day), Moon (night), Moon with its atmosphere of 3 Billion years ago, and right there it says on the Moon right now, day or night because of the atmosphere, there is NEVER LIQUID WATER. Water goes from Ice to Water Vapor at -67 degrees Celsius. All the discussions since then I have clearly pointed out, that EVEN IF THE MOON SOMEHOW got a MAGIC 1% atmosphere, you still only have liquid water from 0-7 degrees, and that is not enough of a range to get you flowing water to create a 120 mile long channel. And you just keep arguing about how magnetic fields and volcanic winter is going to help you, and you still haven't explained how you get enough atmosphere to actually get water in liquid form.

No wonder water can’t flow on the lunar surface ‘under these conditions’ ..... it’s a wonder it can flow anywhere but Earth under present astronomer restrictions. The SETI guys should give up looking for life evolving on Mars ..... the window is too effin narrow now! Complex organic molecules? Forget it!

Its physics, its what we have been saying for days now, the temperature problem was really bad but you soldiered on, now we threw pressure in and showed that liquid water can't occur at this point on the moon, and you are all about creating a new atmosphere on the moon, long after it lost it, just to get you any kind of liquid water.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

However if there is an atmosphere, there will be pressure. Less atmosphere less pressure, no atmosphere, no pressure (sort of). The fields dictate how long it lasts and how much is eroded. We are losing it now. At least as I read it.

That’s how I thought it worked - a combination of magnetic field, gravity and volcanic emissions coupled with temperature fluctuations .... but astronomers can’t see that being sufficient in the last 1 billion to let water ooze ..... even though volcanoes are still erupting in their scenario to create rilles and the Mares is still molten enough to let their lava residues disappear without trace.
This doesn’t quite add up for me ..... I appreciate this was a transition period from 3billion years ago to today’s hostile environment, but it had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mars - where we know water once flowed copiously?.... I understand all Tig’s reasoning .... but thought my counter points sufficient to seriously undermine those numbers. Apparently not ..... at the moment. Maybe this discussion will prompt some more number crunching ..... and who knows what that might produce to modify lunar theory .... which is far from set in stone.

Bad news for astronomers who think Phase 1 of the Schroter’s Valley erosion was lava formed, just noticed someone has described Herodotus as an impact crater on Wikipedia?! ..... and I thought the Prinzgate ‘impact’ scandal was a one off slip. (Don’t blame me, I’ve never edited or looked into how to edit a page on Wikipedia .... besides, after this thread, astronomers would probably bar me for life from editing anything on a Wikipedia astronomy page! )

^^^^
How hot do you think it is a few yards off the surface of the moon?

Too hot for flipflops and ice cream vendors?

The only way those lunar tourists will need sun block is if the terraforming crews succeed in creating an Earth-normal atmosphere that moderates temperatures and solar radiation to something tolerable to Earthlings.

I was thinking the other day those Haarp Project Nutcases and Frackers would be better employed ‘engineering’ an atmosphere on the Moon rather than ‘messing’ up the weather and triggering earthquakes on this planet. The Frackers could poison the water supply of those that want to ‘play God’ ...... job done ..... but like Fracking itself ..... long term damage for a short term gain!

Why? Because it would destroy long term colonisation and the lunar tourist industry for starters ...... the Herodotus Volvic drinking experience would soon deteriorate and resemble most American states and other territories where these nutjobs operate for profit/minimum responsibility) turning good ground water into Frack Juice©️ With a carcinogen kick.
(Ask yourself, is that the water upsetting your stomach or just another earthquake!)

The moon is a precious fragile thing essential to keeping our planet in balance. Let these sorts of derranged people near it, and we are ALL DEAD. Far better to put all these guys in a space rocket with no steering wheel and point it straight into the core of the Sun.

I'm not sure why you think the poles are boring - I'm far more interested in visiting Earth's polar regions than I am in (again) seeing our tropics and deserts. To each their own. However, I'm sure the cost of transporting water from pole to equator will be relatively low in the big scheme of things. The lower gravity and zero air resistance means the fuel costs for operating sub-orbital water tankers will be pretty low - toss a chunk of ice into the engine's reaction chamber, expose it to vacuum, and force the expanding gasses through a jet nozzle.

Lunar Poles would be interesting too, just a bit ‘boring’ compared to the drama of SV and Aristarchus crater!

That’s a great idea for lunar transport! .... would it really work? ..... if there weren’t any killjoy astronomers around? ..... Just kidding .... I’m sure most astronomers are ‘party animals’ underneath that practical mathematical straitjacket

This piece on Lunar Magnetism is worth a casual read:https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/the-strange-story-of-lunar-magnetism-152245187/

Answer to your post shortly, Tig.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Again you are confusing Magnetic Field and Gravity. The Magnetic field protects us from solar winds stripping effect, all the rest of the things you mention have nothing to do with Magnetic field.



I have not changed the number for the atmosphere at all, I am in fact insulted that you are implying I have. I literally go back to message 106, where I showed you how I calculated the number, and copy and paste it every time. The number is 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs, that is how much material needs to be in the Atmosphere of the moon to give it a 1% of Earth Atmosphere (0.147 PSI). At that atmosphere water is liquid from 0 degrees to 7 degrees Celsius, higher than that its water vapor, lower then that its ice. The moon lost its magnetic field and then its atmosphere was stripped away by solar winds, the volcanoes couldn't eject enough material to keep up with the solar winds and the atmosphere eventually became what we have now. Its what is happening on Mars. It takes that much material in the Atmosphere for 0-7 degrees and as it clearly pointed out in message 101 and 106


No, because the moon had no atmosphere then to be protected by the Earth's magnetic field, if I believed that the stronger field now suddenly protected the moon completely, which I do not believe it would, but I have not had myself or my computer do the Gaussians on it.


There is moondust virtually everywhere on the moon, the issue is that if the Rille were cut through loose sand (ie what you are suggesting), they wouldnt be as defined as they are, they would lose shape the same thing that happens if any liquid (water, lava, brine) cut through a sand on earth vs wearing through a rock, if the Grand Canyon had flowed through sand, it wouldnt still be there as a sight to see, it would have collapsed long before it got as deep as it has.



No, you have gotten silly again. Liquid water and liquid rock can't get mixed together. With the current atmosphere on the moon there is no liquid water, even with 1% of earths atmosphere, a condition that hasnt existed for over 3 Billion years, liquid water exists from 0-7 degrees, while lava is 100s of degrees, that means no liquid water as part of your lava.


Yes it shows you that is was caused by a flowing liquid, then you realize what liquid can flow on the moon in the last billion years, Lava, ok and the Rille starts at a volcano, and ends in a Mare, and gee the samples from the only Rille we have samples from are Volcanic rock, wow, I bet that lava formed the channel. See thats real science, I didnt have to make up an atmosphere 1 billion years ago that there is no evidence of. I didn't have to explain how water would flow for 120 miles at a temperature above boiling on Earth with a much greater atmosphere. I didnt have to explain how millions of gallons water got to the cobras head to spout out of it. Lava comes from volcano, flows downhill, pours out on the largest lava sea on the Moon.


I hate that we are talking about new Rille's again, but Rima Prinz is the source of the lava, not its endpoint, and it looks alot like our current Hawaiian activity after its collapse, of course after a billion years ago, its got alot of moon dust on it from the meteors.


This is such a wrong comment I dont know what to say. The Rille are not even or uniform across their whole length so I dont know why you think the lava tubes have collapsed in such a manner, and SV is not a collapsed lava tube its a lava flow from the volcano to the lava sea.



Now you are making up things again. Message 96 we get 400 talking about Pressure and boiling point. Message 98 I point out that at 1% of the Earth's atmosphere that water boils at 7 degrees Celsius. Then message 101, I list earth, Mars, Moon (day), Moon (night), Moon with its atmosphere of 3 Billion years ago, and right there it says on the Moon right now, day or night because of the atmosphere, there is NEVER LIQUID WATER. Water goes from Ice to Water Vapor at -67 degrees Celsius. All the discussions since then I have clearly pointed out, that EVEN IF THE MOON SOMEHOW got a MAGIC 1% atmosphere, you still only have liquid water from 0-7 degrees, and that is not enough of a range to get you flowing water to create a 120 mile long channel. And you just keep arguing about how magnetic fields and volcanic winter is going to help you, and you still haven't explained how you get enough atmosphere to actually get water in liquid form.



Its physics, its what we have been saying for days now, the temperature problem was really bad but you soldiered on, now we threw pressure in and showed that liquid water can't occur at this point on the moon, and you are all about creating a new atmosphere on the moon, long after it lost it, just to get you any kind of liquid water.
-Tig

Fantastic post, and an instructive and informative one, too.

Now, why do I keep thinking that every single last syllable is going to fall on very deaf ears - not to mention a mind adamantly resistant to accepting arguments that run contrary to deeply rooted preconceived but discounted theories?

And why do I keep thinking that you will read yet another post attempting to argue that liquid water flowed on the moon and caused these features?

 

[400]

It's like Reg and the Romans.

 

[millerj123]

It's like Reg and the Romans.

Wait, you mean the aqueducts? Or, that the Bloody Romans gave us the moon Rilles?

 

[monokakata]

Fantastic post, and an instructive and informative one, too.

Now, why do I keep thinking that every single last syllable is going to fall on very deaf ears - not to mention a mind adamantly resistant to accepting arguments that run contrary to deeply rooted preconceived but discounted theories?

And why do I keep thinking that you will read yet another post attempting to argue that liquid water flowed on the moon and caused these features?

You keep thinking that because that's what's going to happen.

I can't think of a single Dubdrifter thread in which he changed his mind. In every case I'm aware of, he asserts some heterodox opinion (from youtube, it seems) and then defends it to the end. Here we have more than 130 postings and Dub is still on about the same damn thing he started with. Nothing will make him change his mind.

He should enter politics. He's the master of appearing to be open to ideas that differ from his -- you know, ideas that actually have scientific support -- while never actually accepting them.

A tile setter I know believes that "they" are moving magnetic north around. Nothing I can say has any effect on this belief. His bedrock assumption is that "north" should never move; if it does, then there must be a conspiracy to make that happen. That's the kind of thing we're seeing here.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You keep thinking that because that's what's going to happen.

I can't think of a single Dubdrifter thread in which he changed his mind. In every case I'm aware of, he asserts some heterodox opinion (from youtube, it seems) and then defends it to the end. Here was have more than 130 postings and Dub is still on about the same damn thing he started with. Nothing will make him change his mind.

He should enter politics. He's the master of appearing to be open to ideas that differ from his -- you know, ideas that actually have scientific support -- while never actually accepting them.

A tile setter I know believes that "they" are moving magnetic north around. Nothing I can say has any effect on this belief. His bedrock assumption is that "north" should never move; if it does, then there must be a conspiracy to make that happen. That's the kind of thing we're seeing here.

Yes, your thoughtful post sort of echoes my own musings on the subject.

Indeed, I have asked myself (rhetorically) what on earth would be required by way of argument, evidence, proof, to compel our OP to actually question the delusional theory he clings to with such adamantine certainty?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Lunar Poles would be interesting too, just a bit ‘boring’ compared to the drama of SV and Aristarchus crater!

That’s a great idea for lunar transport! .... would it really work? ..... if there weren’t any killjoy astronomers around? ..... Just kidding .... I’m sure most astronomers are ‘party animals’ underneath that practical mathematical straitjacket

It seems likely that tourist hotels will be located near the best water source, all other things being equal (which they never are). Those who have particular destinations in mind will take day trips to the major sights. Maybe SV and Aristarchus crater will find their way onto an itinerary, maybe not.

I think "killjoy rocket scientists" is the right term here. Physicists, not astronomers. I was just playing at old-fashioned science fiction here - take something that seems scientifically plausible and run with it. Usually, that's safer than running with scissors, but you never know who and what your fantasy may inspire.

The concept is ancient, going back to Hero of Alexandria's aeolipile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile. Essentially, a steam-powered rocket. If you had one of those water-propelled toy rockets as a kid... similar idea.

The devil is always in the details. It may turn out that my bright idea requires a chunk of ice the size of a small glacier. Steam engineering is something my grandfather would be more at home with - he learned it at Stevens Institute of Technology in the early part of the last century. His thick, Engineers Handbook was almost entirely devoted to mechanical, civil, and steam engineering. Electrical Engineering filled a paltry 15 pages. What a difference a century makes!

 

[Tigger11]

It seems likely that tourist hotels will be located near the best water source, all other things being equal (which they never are). Those who have particular destinations in mind will take day trips to the major sights. Maybe SV and Aristarchus crater will find their way onto an itinerary, maybe not.

I agree on the poles for the tourists because the water is close and if they choose the North Pole they can put solar panels up high and have lots of power every day, plus right now it appears the best location for He3. SV is going to be a place of exploration, it was the target for one of the cancelled Apollo missions for a reason, but no reason to have a location that doesnt have sunlight 50% of the time and isnt close to water.

The devil is always in the details. It may turn out that my bright idea requires a chunk of ice the size of a small glacier. Steam engineering is something my grandfather would be more at home with - he learned it at Stevens Institute of Technology in the early part of the last century. His thick, Engineers Handbook was almost entirely devoted to mechanical, civil, and steam engineering. Electrical Engineering filled a paltry 15 pages. What a difference a century makes!

Love your Engineers handbook story, I have a complete set of CRCs here at work. I got one when I first went to college had used my fathers and had picked up a bunch of old ones at yard sales over the years and then with Ebay got all those I was missing. Now work buys me the new one when they come out (in fact #99 showed up last week) and it goes in the cabinet with its 90+ brothers, plus a ton of other esoteric engineering and mathematics books. But its funny just in my career how much has changed in the later editions of the standard engineering and science handbooks. The first few editions as you said talk all about steam engineering, my grandfather used to explain how they worked, because he drove them for years, and then I'd work the math and physics, and just imagining designing this device to drive a train 1000's of miles safely is just amazing.
-Tig

 

[AngerDanger]

That’s how I thought it worked - a combination of magnetic field, gravity and volcanic emissions coupled with temperature fluctuations .... but astronomers can’t see that being sufficient in the last 1 billion to let water ooze ..... even though volcanoes are still erupting in their scenario to create rilles and the Mares is still molten enough to let their lava residues disappear without trace.
This doesn’t quite add up for me ..... I appreciate this was a transition period from 3billion years ago to today’s hostile environment, but it had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mars - where we know water once flowed copiously?.... I understand all Tig’s reasoning .... but thought my counter points sufficient to seriously undermine those numbers. Apparently not ..... at the moment. Maybe this discussion will prompt some more number crunching ..... and who knows what that might produce to modify lunar theory .... which is far from set in stone.

Alright youve had your fun with the ellipsis now let somebody else have a turn Seriously were about 150 posts in and nobody has brought up the fact that Dubdrifter seems to be bogarting the punctuation

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Alright youve had your fun with the ellipsis now let somebody else have a turn Seriously were about 150 posts in and nobody has brought up the fact that Dubdrifter seems to be bogarting the punctuation

Thank you: I have just learned a new verb today - one I had never come across before - "to bogart".

 

[Tigger11]

That’s how I thought it worked - a combination of magnetic field, gravity and volcanic emissions coupled with temperature fluctuations .... but astronomers can’t see that being sufficient in the last 1 billion to let water ooze ..... even though volcanoes are still erupting in their scenario to create rilles and the Mares is still molten enough to let their lava residues disappear without trace.
This doesn’t quite add up for me ..... I appreciate this was a transition period from 3billion years ago to today’s hostile environment, but it had an atmosphere twice as thick as Mars - where we know water once flowed copiously?.... I understand all Tig’s reasoning .... but thought my counter points sufficient to seriously undermine those numbers. Apparently not ..... at the moment. Maybe this discussion will prompt some more number crunching ..... and who knows what that might produce to modify lunar theory .... which is far from set in stone.

You are a little confused about the Moons once atmosphere. The Moon over 3 Billion years ago had an atmosphere, twice what Mars is NOW. At that time, Mars had an awesome magnetic field and lots more atmosphere and pressure then it has now. Liquid water can exist on the lowlands of Mars now during certain parts of the year, but there is a very good chance that the earliest oxygen rich atmosphere in the Solar System was Mars not earth, and Mars may have had percentage wise as much water as Earth at one point (ie 70-75% coverage). Loss of the magnetic Field allowed the solar winds to destroy most of the Mars atmosphere, something the Earth will face in a billion years or so, if the current magnetic field models are correct.
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Apologiies for reply delay-haven’t dropped off thread - distracted by other commitments this week ..... plus problems with draft/rewrites ..... new version shortly, hopefully giving more focussed response to points made above.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Apologies for reply delay. Answers to Tig Post 130.

Again you are confusing Magnetic Field and Gravity. The Magnetic field protects us from solar winds stripping effect, all the rest of the things you mention have nothing to do with Magnetic field.

But in combination, when strong, they are critical to sustaining a substantial lunar atmosphere, and with added temperature fluctuations and density layering ..... a stronger lunar atmospheric pressure to seriously undermine the restrictions of Triple Point, is surely a formality?

To aid my theory, historically the Moon was much more active, the liquid core flowed, it had a much stronger magnetic field, it must have retained the gases generated from extensive eruptions. Even when lunar vulcanism was dying, the atmosphere didn’t disappear immediately, because we now know Earth’s magnetism was much stronger during rille creation, enveloping the moon, as you say, with a protective blanket gaussian effect .... together with gravitational effects from lunar orbital lock plus Earth’s proximity tugging at the molecules in that atmosphere(like the Moon does on our tides), together with temperature variations, all plays into how an atmospheric pressure was generated to let ooze flow on the surface.

Interesting to know if there are more rilles on the earth-locked side of the Moon ....or the dark side?
If there are more facing us, then Earth’s gravity+other factors may be influencing the formation in some subtle way.(Need to check that and mull over reasons why).

The key to making my theory work is to take a close look at astronomer data proving the Moon only had a very weak atmosphere for the last 3 billion years. Can you link me to the research that conclusively proves that?
It is the key to this argument.

I have not changed the number for the atmosphere at all, I am in fact insulted that you are implying I have. I literally go back to message 106, where I showed you how I calculated the number, and copy and paste it every time. The number is 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs, that is how much material needs to be in the Atmosphere of the moon to give it a 1% of Earth Atmosphere (0.147 PSI). At that atmosphere water is liquid from 0 degrees to 7 degrees Celsius, higher than that its water vapor, lower then that its ice. The moon lost its magnetic field and then its atmosphere was stripped away by solar winds, the volcanoes couldn't eject enough material to keep up with the solar winds and the atmosphere eventually became what we have now. Its what is happening on Mars. It takes that much material in the Atmosphere for 0-7 degrees and as it clearly pointed out in message 101 and 106

It was a lazy comment made in error - I was focussing on 0-7 degrees and forgot it referred to a 1% atmosphere scenario, failed to look back to post 98 where you outlined the large temp variations along the equatorial band and didn’t check the zeros in your lbs of atmosphere calculation.

With regards that lbs number, is that strictly necessary to achieve the atmospheric pressure I need for water flow?
It sounds like a large number, but compared to the current lbs of Earth atmosphere held by a strong magnetic field, relatively clear of pyroclast dust, admittedly with additional water vapour in it+gases generated by life on earth and pressure from lunar tidal/gravitational forces - which gives us a healthy 14psi and good water flow ..... aren’t you creating an unnecessary hurdle here? Surely a strong magnetic field minus earth’s unique water/life factors still give astronomers an equation to work a decent psi for the Moon during rille formation?

No, because the moon had no atmosphere then to be protected by the Earth's magnetic field, if I believed that the stronger field now suddenly protected the moon completely, which I do not believe it would, but I have not had myself or my computer do the Gaussians on it

Can you highlight the proof that confirms the moon had a very weak atmosphere for the last 3 billion years? during the period of all rille creation? Surely limited sampling/data plus unique moon erosion/deposition factors plus accuracy on dating rille formation and predicting lunar atmospheric decay when volcanic activity only gradually died out surely means this is a very tricky calculation on which to pin Lava Creation Theory. Still interested in the numbers crunched on how much the Earth’s magnetic field(1-1.5 billion years ago) protected the remnants of atmosphere generated by the lava flows. How close Earth proximity and lunar lock affected the equatorial areas where most prominent ‘controversial’ rilles occur.

(Stop Press: Just discovered this really interesting article, that strengthens my prolonged magnetic field argument.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809142039.htm

I feel this article is a real boost to my theory. If the Moon’s atmosphere at the time of rille formation was one tenth of the Earth’s now ..... surely the domino effect of all those factors collectively will let Ooze Theory cut all lunar rilles except possibly SV’s primary cut?

There is moondust virtually everywhere on the moon, the issue is that if the Rille were cut through loose sand (ie what you are suggesting), they wouldnt be as defined as they are, they would lose shape the same thing that happens if any liquid (water, lava, brine) cut through a sand on earth vs wearing through a rock, if the Grand Canyon had flowed through sand, it wouldnt still be there as a sight to see, it would have collapsed long before it got as deep as it has.

I reluctantly used the word ‘sand’ to describe the pyroclast loose of Hadley Rille, Schroter’s Valley(secondary cut) and the Prinz area - all easily cut by water ooze(if allowed). LROC images are a little deceptive around Prinz ..... are we looking at pyroclast ‘sand’ or pure lava erosion blown free of all Prinz pyroclast debris?The image of Rima Prinz 1 doesn’t suggest a mini volcano to my ill-trained eye, possibly a lava vent from the side of Prinz crater at a considerable push of the imagination ..... so water cutting ‘sand’ here looks the best fit from the colour contour photo Post 108.

No, you have gotten silly again. Liquid water and liquid rock can't get mixed together. With the current atmosphere on the moon there is no liquid water, even with 1% of earths atmosphere, a condition that hasnt existed for over 3 Billion years, liquid water exists from 0-7 degrees, while lava is 100s of degrees, that means no liquid water as part of your lava.

Technically, aren’t water/steam believed to drive pyroclast flows? ..... maybe lava alone created SV primary cut, pyroclast flows/ deposits later filled gorge, secondary cut was definitely just water ooze through loose Hadley Rille type material. Does that sound likely and fit better with the rille creation timeline when things had died down a bit volcanically?

This is such a wrong comment I dont know what to say. The Rille are not even or uniform across their whole length so I dont know why you think the lava tubes have collapsed in such a manner, and SV is not a collapsed lava tube its a lava flow from the volcano to the lava sea.

Can’t understand why astronomers think rilles are collapsed lava tubes - it forces them to be hundreds of kms long, run shallow to the surface, then collapsed along their whole length, without showing any intact tubular sections+in the case of SV be up to 10km wide at the Cobra’s Head!

one (mostly basaltic), volcanoes without water and in 1/6 gravity act different then those on Earth. The only actually debate on the item you are talking about is whether its lava flow, a collapsed lava tube or some mashup of the two.-Tig

Glad you’ve finally dumped ‘collapsed lava tube theory’ for SV!

Lava tubes full of condensate fractured by meteor impacts around dead volcanic craters creating water ooze erosion..... makes much more sense(for most rille scenarios except SV primary cut) ..... it works on other bodies in the Solar System - the erosion patterns on our Moon are exactly the same ...... and now we may have Triple Point historically in trouble during rille formation.

 

[Tigger11]

Apologies for reply delay. Answers to Tig Post 130.


But in combination, when strong, they are critical to sustaining a substantial lunar atmosphere, and with added temperature fluctuations and density layering ..... a stronger lunar atmospheric pressure to seriously undermine the restrictions of Triple Point, is surely a formality?

To aid my theory, historically the Moon was much more active, the liquid core flowed, it had a much stronger magnetic field, it must have retained the gases generated from extensive eruptions. Even when lunar vulcanism was dying, the atmosphere didn’t disappear immediately, because we now know Earth’s magnetism was much stronger during rille creation, enveloping the moon, as you say, with a protective blanket gaussian effect .... together with gravitational effects from lunar orbital lock plus Earth’s proximity tugging at the molecules in that atmosphere(like the Moon does on our tides), together with temperature variations, all plays into how an atmospheric pressure was generated to let ooze flow on the surface.

You still don't understand magnetic fields. Simple explanation, on earth which has a ton of gravity compared to the moon, and a huge magnetic field compared to anything the moon has ever had. I put a cup of water in a beaker into a vacuum chamber, I dial the vacuum chamber to 3% atmosphere and before it actually gets there it boils away here in the warm south at room temperature. Now that is 3x the atmosphere we would gotten if all that material got thrown in the air, and its much stronger gravity and magnetic field then the moon ever had, and still at room temperature the water boils away, because neither gravity nor magnetic field matter in this real world problem. Pressure and Temperature is all the matters, and all the gravity may have been stronger and magnetic field was bigger doesn't matter for when the water turns to vapor, its just temperature and pressure and you can't get around either one.

Interesting to know if there are more rilles on the earth-locked side of the Moon ....or the dark side?
If there are more facing us, then Earth’s gravity+other factors may be influencing the formation in some subtle way.(Need to check that and mull over reasons why).

The key to making my theory work is to take a close look at astronomer data proving the Moon only had a very weak atmosphere for the last 3 billion years. Can you link me to the research that conclusively proves that?
It is the key to this argument.

All the Rilles and all the Basaltic Volcanoes are on the Earth side of the moon. LROC in 2011 discovered a set of Silicate volcanoes on the Far side (NOT DARK SIDE) of the moon, it had previously discovered the first Silicate volcanoes on the moon itself on the earth side. I think thats the science as it is now. Of course LROC has provided more data then all other planetary probes combined, so I might have missed something. The study you referenced from Marshall, said that between 3 and 4 billion years ago for 70 million year, the moon had an atmosphere twice that of Mars. That a little more then 1% of earths, as mentioned in message 101, but not alot and again, it gives you a tiny window of temperature for liquid water to flow not enough for it to flow 200+ km.

With regards that lbs number, is that strictly necessary to achieve the atmospheric pressure I need for water flow?
It sounds like a large number, but compared to the current lbs of Earth atmosphere held by a strong magnetic field, relatively clear of pyroclast dust, admittedly with additional water vapour in it+gases generated by life on earth and pressure from lunar tidal/gravitational forces - which gives us a healthy 14psi and good water flow ..... aren’t you creating an unnecessary hurdle here? Surely a strong magnetic field minus earth’s unique water/life factors still give astronomers an equation to work a decent psi for the Moon during rille formation?

That number gives you an atmospheric pressure of 0.147 lbs per square inch, or 1% of what we have on earth. At that pressure, water melts at 0 degrees Celsius and turns to water vapor at 7 degrees Celsius. There isnt enough time on the moon between 0 and 7 degrees for the water to flow 200+ km.

Can you highlight the proof that confirms the moon had a very weak atmosphere for the last 3 billion years? during the period of all rille creation? Surely limited sampling/data plus unique moon erosion/deposition factors plus accuracy on dating rille formation and predicting lunar atmospheric decay when volcanic activity only gradually died out surely means this is a very tricky calculation on which to pin Lava Creation Theory. Still interested in the numbers crunched on how much the Earth’s magnetic field(1-1.5 billion years ago) protected the remnants of atmosphere generated by the lava flows. How close Earth proximity and lunar lock affected the equatorial areas where most prominent ‘controversial’ rilles occur.

Again it has had basically no atmosphere for the last 3 billion years. This is the Atmosphere it had 3 Billion years ago
0.184 PSI, this is the atmosphere it has now 0.0000000000145 PSI. AGAIN MAGNETIC FIELD DOES NOT CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE.

(Stop Press: Just discovered this really interesting article, that strengthens my prolonged magnetic field argument.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809142039.htm

I feel this article is a real boost to my theory. If the Moon’s atmosphere at the time of rille formation was one tenth of the Earth’s now ..... surely the domino effect of all those factors collectively will let Ooze Theory cut all lunar rilles except possibly SV’s primary cut?

No, because again Magnetic field isn't an issue. As I explained, I can do the same experiment on earth with a stronger magnetic field then the moon ever dreamed of and more gravity as well. And I lower the pressure and water boils at Room Temperature. The pressure on the moon even with its once present atmosphere doesnt get you flowing water for any length of time.

Can’t understand why astronomers think rilles are collapsed lava tubes - it forces them to be hundreds of kms long, run shallow to the surface, then collapsed along their whole length, without showing any intact tubular sections+in the case of SV be up to 10km wide at the Cobra’s Head!

You mean besides the fact they look like collapsed lava tubes, are made of volcanic stone and flow downhill, yeah it seems silly except for those reasons .
-Tig

 

[Dubdrifter]

Surprised people are more concerned about ellipsi than the subject of the OP? (People must be bored silly by this spat) ..... I’ve had the comment before...... see it as a way to inject a pause/breathing space/thinking space .......into overlong sentences/posts which might have ‘tough meat’ in them needing digestion. People do it to help the Twitter generation who struggle to read more than 140 characters on their mobiles. If you’re concerned it’s eating up your data allowance................ isn’t ............. it ............ time ............. you ..............................got a new mobile contract? [€$£ - if overdone - could be v.annoying ]

I can't think of a single Dubdrifter thread in which he changed his mind. In every case I'm aware of, he asserts some heterodox opinion (from youtube, it seems) and then defends it to the end. Here we have more than 130 postings and Dub is still on about the same damn thing he started with. Nothing will make him change his mind.

He should enter politics. He's the master of appearing to be open to ideas that differ from his -- you know, ideas that actually have scientific support -- while never actually accepting them.

A tile setter I know believes that "they" are moving magnetic north around. Nothing I can say has any effect on this belief. His bedrock assumption is that "north" should never move; if it does, then there must be a conspiracy to make that happen. That's the kind of thing we're seeing here.

Welcome back.... there must be a strong magnetic field around this thread! .... suggesting we have moved forward since Day 1.
Firstly, bump this to your tile setter ..... it may shut him up:
https://www.livescience.com/17619-lasers-measure-earth-rotation-wobble.html (Sadly, I don’t think it helps my argument much to significantly increase atmospheric pressure on our Moon - unless astronomers see a reason it might?)
Those who bemoan I appear ‘entrenched’ should note: I did volte face and accepted SV Primary Cut could be lava because there was evidence of residues at the end - and a possible vent at the side of Herodotus.
When 400 mentioned Triple Point and Tig reinforced it with what appeared immovable numbers, I almost folded Post 124. But when you possibly see a way to mess with those numbers and the astronomer’s ‘entrenched’ position .... the game continues.

Surprised people don’t think the debate has progressed much from February ......since being initially told - “It’s not water erosion, it’s lava” .... the OP has:

- highlighted scientific evidence of seepage of radon gas concentrations in Aristarchus impact crater - (often linked with spring water emissions).
- linked high concentrations of magnesium in Hadley Rille pyroclast samples to Earth’s seawater concentrations,
- highlighted 60% water vapour emissions in pyroclast volcanic eruptions on Earth (still keen to know the Moon’s pyroclast eruption water % estimate? - locked in meteor samples)
- suggested how pyroclast eruption tied with a stronger magnetic field contributed greatly to atmosphere creation/lunar volcanic winter, which dampened the temperature extremes of Triple Point to let water flow on the surface.
- highlighted Dr Wendy Panero’s liquifaction of rocks that confirms where Earth’s water originated(making ice from the asteroid belt theory look impractical, a long shot),
- highlighted Chandrayaan-1 mission results indicating water on moon surface(now strangely being reawakened in current discussions in mainstream media-despite data being approx 10 years old),
- highlighted that polar icecaps and water condensates in a current weak lunar atmosphere are still insulated slightly from the Solar Wind and harsh vacuum of Space.
- introduced the idea: lunar gas tube formation condensate+meteor strikes= Rille Water Ooze Theory
- made repeated attempts to engineer ‘windows of water flow’ around lunar day/night intervals and Triple Point restrictions.
- questioned labelling of Prinz and Herodotus craters on Wikipedia as ‘impact’ (which helps astronomers make lava theory work better-ironically!)
- highlighted TLP’s possibly showing evidence of surface gas/liquid activity ..... or possibly lingering vulcanism in older reports.
- questioned anomalies in timelines in relation to solidification of the Mares and astronomer’s alleged lava formation of lunar rilles.
...... not to mention kept Tig entertained.
Highlighting two new points in my reply to Tig, next post, very shortly .... which, fingers crossed, might be significant.

The individual factors above alone won’t tilt the argument - but as a combination working together, they may shift the orthodoxy slightly. Maybe others are beginning to think like me, that if astronomers tapped into their calculators +/- leeway into data figures, rejigged a few restrictive parameters ....Ooze Theory might not be quite so silly after all.
- Maybe Tig already has .... and it’s made no difference .... any of it! ..... but there is always my next post ..... - Not holding my breath.
As an interested observer having a discussion - who is not even an amateur astronomer ..... I’m giving you as much science as I can lay my hands on that might be relevant.
It’s up to the experts to decide how relevant .... some appear to be on here listening(thanks) - it’s been educational for me .... and an ok punch up .... let me know if this stuff I’m referencing shifts your current lunar Triple Point calculations in any way. Feedback helps.

Addendum: ‘Jerry Springer’ style philosophy tip! - (traditionally after a punch-up ):
99% of people float through life not questioning authority or orthodoxy, will bow and scrape, worship and accept the ‘effluent’ Politicians, Big Business and radicalised Religion forces us to swim in .... neither Astronomers nor Lunar Ooze Theory will make your life miserable ..... but it is important to follow your instinct when Orthodoxy is questionable. Good advice: don’t be bullied from that path by anyone - until their reasoning is irrefutable.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Reply to Post 114.

No, because again Magnetic field isn't an issue. As I explained, I can do the same experiment on earth with a stronger magnetic field then the moon ever dreamed of and more gravity as well. And I lower the pressure and water boils at Room Temperature. The pressure on the moon even with its once present atmosphere doesnt get you flowing water for any length of time.

Pressure and Temperature is all the matters, and all the gravity may have been stronger and magnetic field was bigger doesn't matter for when the water turns to vapor, its just temperature and pressure and you can't get around either one.

There must be some aspect of your lab experiments that doesn’t reflect the Real World ..... because without a strong magnetic field and an active core, we wouldn’t have 14psi and 0-100 degrees C.

So surely strength of the magnetic field is an issue. - it’s the key ..... in the lab no, out in the (magnetic) field yes?
Magnetic Field+Gravity+Volcanic Gaseous Emissions = Atmospheric retention. >>> Add gaseous layering/density variations .....Solar radiation(temperature) and ...... gravity variations of Earth’s earlier proximity ...... you create conditions for Atmospheric pressure and temperature change.

Following the logic .... The stronger the magnetic field, the less solar wind stripping occurs, the denser the atmosphere, the greater the layering, the more fine particulate is trapped, the more temperature differential between layers, the more water vapour trapped, the greater the increase on surface gravity ...... all accumulating together to increase Atmospheric Pressure and create a lunar wind to form the ‘dunes’

So shifting astronomer’s numbers on historic temperature/pressure estimations ..... is key to make Ooze Theory work.

Research highlighted shows the magnetic field was much stronger during rille formation than astronomers previously thought. Pyroclast volcanic activity was still topping up a residual atmosphere that lessened temperature extremes(lunar volcanic winter) and atmospheric pressure decay was slowed and protected by a gaussian blanket of a much stronger Earth field at that time, plus scientists now think the two bodies used to be much closer together greatly increasing gravitational effects influencing atmospheric pressure.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170809142039.htm

I thought this link had significant clues to shift Triple Point numbers - apparently not!:

“Weiss and his colleagues analyzed one such rock, known as Apollo 15 sample 15498, which was originally collected on Aug. 1, 1971, from the southern rim of the moon's Dune Crater. The sample is a mix of minerals and rock fragments, welded together by a glassy matrix, the grains of which preserve records of the moon's magnetic field at the time the rock was assembled.
"We found that this glassy material that welds things together has excellent magnetic recording properties," Weiss says.

Baking rocks

The team determined that the rock sample was about 1 to 2.5 billion years old -- much younger than the samples they previously analyzed. They developed a technique to decipher the ancient magnetic field recorded in the rock's glassy matrix by first measuring the rock's natural magnetic properties using a very sensitive magnetometer.
They then exposed the rock to a known magnetic field in the lab, and heated the rock to close to the extreme temperatures in which it originally formed. They measured how the rock's magnetization changed as they increased the surrounding temperature.
"You see how magnetized it gets from getting heated in that known magnetic field, then you compare that field to the natural magnetic field you measured beforehand, and from that you can figure out what the ancient field strength was," Weiss explains.
The researchers did have to make one significant adjustment to the experiment to better simulate the original lunar environment, and in particular, its atmosphere. While the Earth's atmosphere contains around 20 percent oxygen, the moon has only imperceptible traces of the gas. In collaboration with Grove, Suavet built a customized, oxygen-deprived oven in which to heat the rocks, preventing them from rusting while at the same time simulating the oxygen-free environment in which the rocks were originally magnetized.
"In this way, we finally have gotten an accurate measurement of the lunar field," Weiss says.

From ice cream makers to lava lamps

From their experiments, the researchers determined that, around 1 to 2.5 billion years ago, the moon harbored a relatively weak magnetic field, with a strength of about 5 microtesla -- two orders of magnitude weaker than the moon's field around 3 to 4 billion years ago. Such a dramatic dip suggests to Weiss and his colleagues that the moon's dynamo may have been driven by two distinct mechanisms.
Scientists have proposed that the moon's dynamo may have been powered by the Earth's gravitational pull. Early in its history, the moon orbited much closer to the Earth, and the Earth's gravity, in such close proximity, may have been strong enough to pull on and rotate the rocky exterior of the moon. The moon's liquid center may have been dragged along with the moon's outer shell, generating a very strong magnetic field in the process.
It's thought that the moon may have moved sufficiently far away from the Earth by about 3 billion years ago, such that the power available for the dynamo by this mechanism became insufficient. This happens to be right around the time the moon's magnetic field strength dropped. A different mechanism may have then kicked in to sustain this weakened field. As the moon moved away from the Earth, its core likely sustained a low boil via a slow process of cooling over at least 1 billion years.
"As the moon cools, its core acts like a lava lamp -- low-density stuff rises because it's hot or because its composition is different from that of the surrounding fluid," Weiss says. "That's how we think the Earth's dynamo works, and that's what we suggest the late lunar dynamo was doing as well."
The researchers are planning to analyze even younger lunar rocks to determine when the dynamo died off completely.
"Today the moon's field is essentially zero," Weiss says. "And we now know it turned off somewhere between the formation of this rock and today."

(Hope they and Science Daily don’t mind me highlighting their research here. With thanks)

The first bold highlight suggests accurately dating this Apollo meteorite sample is a problem.This article gives a clue why:http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/April04/lunarAnorthosites.html
If you focus on the section Age of the Lunar Crust - it’s clear astronomers are having real problems accurately dating lunar events, especially over the period of rille creation and intense meteor bombardment .....Which is why this important MARE mission to Aristarchus is being proposed: https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/craterstats2015/pdf/9058.pdf

I was hoping this evidence of Apollo 15 Lunar meteorite magnetism and Earth’s stronger blanket gaussian magnetism, proven to exist at the time of rille formation, must have made for a stronger field than astronomers predicted .... and might undermine calculations the moon last had a significant atmosphere 3 billion years ago. If residual magnetism was still strong and Earth’s gaussian blanket influence was strong 1billion years ago ..... hopefully astronomers figures might be dodgy being 2 billion years out?

It’s likely the rilles were formed just after the last pyroclastic volcanoes were dying, after spraying Hadley Rille, Prinz +SV with mineral ‘sand’ ..... and after significant water condensate had gathered in lava tubes around the dying super volcanoes.

If you can imagine fine pyroclast particulate dust trapped in those denser atmospheric layers held in by that stronger magnetic field and increased gravity(dust that has since fallen to cover the whole surface of the Moon- sometimes leaving coloured gaussian patterns proving again magnetism was stronger in that latter day scenario) ..... you can now conclude current day temperature extremes would not have been so great because this trapped particulate and different gas layering would deflect penetrating solar rays and cause the ‘lunar winter’ effects on the surface. This would mean the heat of the prolonged lunar day would be logically less extreme, and through a blanket effect of trapped warm gases, the extremes of the prolonged lunar night would be lessened ..... with atmospheric pressure much higher in these conditions .... pretty logical water would flow much easier on the surface with a wider number of hours to erode between freezing and boiling extremes, wouldn’t you say??

Maybe astronomer’s Triple Point numbers don’t alter because of this 2nd paragraph in bold :

“From their experiments, the researchers determined that, around 1 to 2.5 billion years ago, the moon harbored a relatively weak magnetic field, with a strength of about 5 microtesla -- two orders of magnitude weaker than the moon's field around 3 to 4 billion years ago. Such a dramatic dip suggests to Weiss and his colleagues that the moon's dynamo may have been driven by two distinct mechanisms.”

Worth mentioning this meteor impact conglomerate solidified on the ground and crystallised to reflect the magnetic field on the surface of the Moon at that time, when the lunar molten core was less active ..... and shouldn’t be seen as an accurate indicator of lunar atmosphere and pressure because the Earth’s strong magnetic field protection is ‘confusing’ the data ..... two separate fields in conflict but both deflecting solar stripping.

With so many inaccuracies and anomalies ..... can Tig’s atmosphere + pressure numbers really apply to the period of rille creation? The above MARE mission proposal suggests even astronomers are concerned, they need more samples.

My last throw of the dice in this argument is: The earth’s gravitational tug ..... the reverse of the huge lunar tug that pulls our tides ..... would repeatedly tug at the Near Side - that soft maleable lunar skin of the cooling Mares, which together with meteor impacts, would cause fracturing of pressurised tubes of water condensate creating Ooze.

All the Rilles and all the Basaltic Volcanoes are on the Earth side of the moon.

This is a strange interesting fact ..... that makes the above sketch of a possible scenario I’ve just cobbled up, even more compelling ..... begging the question, has lunar lock and moon phasing forces created mutual patterns of volcanic and earthquake activity on both tugging bodies?
This article downplays the idea - at least for recent data on effects of our Moon on the Earth (putting stats at ~1%) https://www.wired.com/2012/05/on-earthquakes-eruptions-and-the-moon-eruptions-revisited/

..... but because we have no seas on the Moon except the cooling Mares to lessen the heave on the surface, maybe the clue of unusual one sided Basaltic volcanic eruptions and rille creation ..... tells us this effect may be much more significant on the Moon.

Looking at the basic stats comparing the Earth, Moon and Mars: http://digipac.ca/chemical/mtom/contents/chapter1/marsfacts.htm

..... we note, with all the historic variations in atmospheric temperature/pressure which enables Earth and Mars, copious water erosion ...... astronomers say despite all factors being similar at one time ..... they state it never happened on our Moon ..... even when geyser erosion on Mars (Red Tomatoe’s pics) show similar patterns etched in pyroclast loose which might be recent even under current Martian climate ‘restrictions’.

The key difference here is...... the speed of lunar rotation. Which begs the key question ....if water did flow on the moon, to match patterns on Mars .....has the moon’s rotation slowed significantly since rille creation?
Googling this question, this weekend, came up with this:
http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2016/08/the-moons-rotation-rate

I now know the Moon’s pull on our water slows the Earth, Earth’s pull on the harder lunar surface without the ‘give’ water affords our planet, must mean the ‘brakes’ Earth’s gravitational proximity applies to the Moon must be even more drastic. So we conclude if the Moon has slowed the ‘wet slippery’ Earth a little over time .... if you calculate Earth’s harder braking on the speed of lunar rotation as the Mares hardened, if you extrapolate back the braking rate our Earth exerts on the Moon related to the changes in distance over the history of rille creation, it’s easy to conclude lunar rotation was much faster during rille creation, therefore temperature extremes not so drastic, pressures higher than predicted ..... gravity stronger and atmospheres much thicker (theory similar to the Jupiter model and the effect it’s speed of rotation has on it’s gravity, atmosphere and moons - check it out - interesting)

BINGO ..... Ooze Theory significantly back on track! .... Lunar Triple Point restrictions destroyed? ..... with pictures matching Mars rilles and other rilles in Solar System.

Is that the Ace in the Hole? ..... who knows?

Just to end, finally ..... because there is no more argument to offer that hasn’t been repeated ad nauseam, except this:

You mean besides the fact they look like collapsed lava tubes, are made of volcanic stone and flow downhill, yeah it seems silly except for those reasons .

But they don’t look like that at all(to my ignorant eye). Hadley Rille isn’t made of volcanic stone, the Prinz area is littered with loose pyroclast deposit, and the secondary cut in SV is similarly through loose pyroclast with tight twists and turns. Only water will do that through such loose material .... lava will just cut right through.(Fact-courtesy Tig+Monokakata)
You got the downhill bit partly right though - except where surface buckling has occured!

Time to move on, we can just agree to disagree ..... the new prospective lunar mission MARE, going to the Aristarchus area, might clarify the matter eventually ..... and nail a few dating issues still uncertain in this debate. [Maybe they can even drill into one of my lava tubes while they are there-prolong the mission a bit if they hit quality spring water)

If they take a spade to dig a hot spring jacuzzi in the substrate(like the Ooze Hole of Rima Prinz 1), take their swimming trunks, and go through months of desaturation (like a deep sea saturation diver undergoes on the surface but taking them very slowly from 14psi to current Moon psi), acclimatise their bodies to function in next to zero pressure without their blood boiling ..... they could have a pool party and barbeque with a bit of sun block and a mini breather device (James Bond gadget) or even better .... an intravenous oxygenator inserted into the arm ..... negating the need to actively breath, because opening your mouth might dehydrate you in seconds?
(Ignore this paragraph-just sci-fi fantasy).

Another thread beckons ..... after a break ..... 6 months honing Ooze Theory has been interesting, but demanding.

 

[Tigger11]

Reply to Post 114.

There must be some aspect of your lab experiments that doesn’t reflect the Real World ..... because without a strong magnetic field and an active core, we wouldn’t have 14psi and 0-100 degrees C.

NOT TRUE AT ALL. Venus has NO Magnetic Field, and less gravity then Earth and yet it has by far the densest atmosphere. Its atmosphere is 92x heavier then earth, about the same as 3000 feet under the ocean. Or about 1350 lbs per square inch. It will squash you like a bug.

Following the logic .... The stronger the magnetic field, the less solar wind stripping occurs, the denser the atmosphere, the greater the layering, the more fine particulate is trapped, the more temperature differential between layers, the more water vapour trapped, the greater the increase on surface gravity ...... all accumulating together to increase Atmospheric Pressure and create a lunar wind to form the ‘dunes’

Magnetic field protects an atmosphere from solar wind stripping of some elements from the atmosphere, that is all it does with regard to this conversation, it doesn't create or help create an atmosphere. If it exists, it protects it, if it doesn't it does nothing. You don't get an atmosphere because the magnetic field gets stronger, Moon lost its atmosphere 3 Billion years ago, it never came and it never will.

Research highlighted shows the magnetic field was much stronger during rille formation than astronomers previously thought. Pyroclast volcanic activity was still topping up a residual atmosphere that lessened temperature extremes(lunar volcanic winter) and atmospheric pressure decay was slowed and protected by a gaussian blanket of a much stronger Earth field at that time, plus scientists now think the two bodies used to be much closer together greatly increasing gravitational effects influencing atmospheric pressure.

I deleted a bunch of info from an article I read long before this thread started. Also I would love for you to show an actual scientist saying they think the moon was significantly closer to earth in the last billion years, all the math, shows the steady drift away, in the last billion years its moved 1% away that not a significant number over that time. Obviously as most know the moon is drifting away from us at 1.6 inches a year or so, but its been a pretty steady system since the Rille was created.

The first bold highlight suggests accurately dating this Apollo meteorite sample is a problem.This article gives a clue why:http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/April04/lunarAnorthosites.html
If you focus on the section Age of the Lunar Crust - it’s clear astronomers are having real problems accurately dating lunar events, especially over the period of rille creation and intense meteor bombardment .....Which is why this important MARE mission to Aristarchus is being proposed: https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/craterstats2015/pdf/9058.pdf

Its not hard to date samples, its hard to find samples that aren't billions of years old, that is the issue, most of the samples are very old.

It’s likely the rilles were formed just after the last pyroclastic volcanoes were dying, after spraying Hadley Rille, Prinz +SV with mineral ‘sand’ ..... and after significant water condensate had gathered in lava tubes around the dying super volcanoes.

Even when it had an atmosphere, you didn't have running water, it freezes at 0 and turns to gas at a low temperature, water can't travel 200 Km in the 10 minutes it takes to go form 0 to 7 degrees when the sun comes up.

If you can imagine fine pyroclast particulate dust trapped in those denser atmospheric layers held in by that stronger magnetic field and increased gravity(dust that has since fallen to cover the whole surface of the Moon- sometimes leaving coloured gaussian patterns proving again magnetism was stronger in that latter day scenario) ..... you can now conclude current day temperature extremes would not have been so great because this trapped particulate and different gas layering would deflect penetrating solar rays and cause the ‘lunar winter’ effects on the surface. This would mean the heat of the prolonged lunar day would be logically less extreme, and through a blanket effect of trapped warm gases, the extremes of the prolonged lunar night would be lessened ..... with atmospheric pressure much higher in these conditions .... pretty logical water would flow much easier on the surface with a wider number of hours to erode between freezing and boiling extremes, wouldn’t you say??

Look I can imagine all kinds of things, I've been to Pandora at WDC, but that doesn't mean that it can happen on our moon. Changing the magnetic field, changing the gravity, doesn't effect atmospheric pressure, and the moon has NEVER had enough ATMOSPHERIC pressure for water to flow for any length of time, and you need it to carve out a 200+ Km canyon. It didn't happen, especially since that Canyon was carved out after the moons tiny atmosphere had disappeared.

“From their experiments, the researchers determined that, around 1 to 2.5 billion years ago, the moon harbored a relatively weak magnetic field, with a strength of about 5 microtesla -- two orders of magnitude weaker than the moon's field around 3 to 4 billion years ago. Such a dramatic dip suggests to Weiss and his colleagues that the moon's dynamo may have been driven by two distinct mechanisms.”

TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SMALLER. You understand how little that is, and again Magnetic field is not a factor in Atmospheric pressure or triple point of water, which is what you have to beat here, to get your ooze theory.

Worth mentioning this meteor impact conglomerate solidified on the ground and crystallised to reflect the magnetic field on the surface of the Moon at that time, when the lunar molten core was less active ..... and shouldn’t be seen as an accurate indicator of lunar atmosphere and pressure because the Earth’s strong magnetic field protection is ‘confusing’ the data ..... two separate fields in conflict but both deflecting solar stripping.

Again atmosphere and pressure have nothing to do with Magnetic field, Venus has none, but has huge pressure, Moon getting a baby one and the Earth's overlapping it, does nothing to help it create an atmosphere, especially one so large you can have water flow for 100's of kilometers for 1000's of years.

With so many inaccuracies and anomalies ..... can Tig’s atmosphere + pressure numbers really apply to the period of rille creation? The above MARE mission proposal suggests even astronomers are concerned, they need more samples.

Oh please stop. You literally are arguing about whether physics actually apply. Mare's goal is the same as it was when it was the target for Apollo, its a young area of the moon, we can get lots of interesting data from a small area.

The key difference here is...... the speed of lunar rotation. Which begs the key question ....if water did flow on the moon, to match patterns on Mars .....has the moon’s rotation slowed significantly since rille creation?
Googling this question, this weekend, came up with this:
http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2016/08/the-moons-rotation-rate

Yeah, which basically says so slightly it doesn't matter for your argument.

it’s easy to conclude lunar rotation was much faster during rille creation, therefore temperature extremes not so drastic, pressures higher than predicted ..... gravity stronger and atmospheres much thicker (theory similar to the Jupiter model and the effect it’s speed of rotation has on it’s gravity, atmosphere and moons - check it out - interesting)

BINGO ..... Ooze Theory significantly back on track! .... Lunar Triple Point restrictions destroyed? ..... with pictures matching Mars rilles and other rilles in Solar System.

Its easy to conclude that if you don't care about math, science or physics. The moon turning faster is a BIGGER problem for the ooze theory not a smaller problem for the ooze theory. When there is no light from the sun on the moon, its below 0 degrees, so the water is frozen so no flowing water, once its gets light it heats up, melts the ice and if there is an atmosphere, which last was over 3 billion years ago, water may flow for a few minutes before it hits 7 degrees and turns to vapor. Triple point is everywhere, its the same on all planets in our solar system. At double current Mars pressure, the atmosphere the Moon had in its infancy, the moon can't have significant running water because it only exists as liquid for a few degrees, no changes in gravity, no changes in magnetic field affect that, it hard proven science, that they literally teach in high school these days. Since it lost its atmosphere over 3 Billion years ago, its had no liquid water, because the pressure is less than the triple point of water. No water, no silly ooze theory.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

NOT TRUE AT ALL. Venus has NO Magnetic Field, and less gravity then Earth and yet it has by far the densest atmosphere. Its atmosphere is 92x heavier then earth, about the same as 3000 feet under the ocean. Or about 1350 lbs per square inch. It will squash you like a bug.


Magnetic field protects an atmosphere from solar wind stripping of some elements from the atmosphere, that is all it does with regard to this conversation, it doesn't create or help create an atmosphere. If it exists, it protects it, if it doesn't it does nothing. You don't get an atmosphere because the magnetic field gets stronger, Moon lost its atmosphere 3 Billion years ago, it never came and it never will.



I deleted a bunch of info from an article I read long before this thread started. Also I would love for you to show an actual scientist saying they think the moon was significantly closer to earth in the last billion years, all the math, shows the steady drift away, in the last billion years its moved 1% away that not a significant number over that time. Obviously as most know the moon is drifting away from us at 1.6 inches a year or so, but its been a pretty steady system since the Rille was created.


Its not hard to date samples, its hard to find samples that aren't billions of years old, that is the issue, most of the samples are very old.


Even when it had an atmosphere, you didn't have running water, it freezes at 0 and turns to gas at a low temperature, water can't travel 200 Km in the 10 minutes it takes to go form 0 to 7 degrees when the sun comes up.


Look I can imagine all kinds of things, I've been to Pandora at WDC, but that doesn't mean that it can happen on our moon. Changing the magnetic field, changing the gravity, doesn't effect atmospheric pressure, and the moon has NEVER had enough ATMOSPHERIC pressure for water to flow for any length of time, and you need it to carve out a 200+ Km canyon. It didn't happen, especially since that Canyon was carved out after the moons tiny atmosphere had disappeared.


TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SMALLER. You understand how little that is, and again Magnetic field is not a factor in Atmospheric pressure or triple point of water, which is what you have to beat here, to get your ooze theory.


Again atmosphere and pressure have nothing to do with Magnetic field, Venus has none, but has huge pressure, Moon getting a baby one and the Earth's overlapping it, does nothing to help it create an atmosphere, especially one so large you can have water flow for 100's of kilometers for 1000's of years.


Oh please stop. You literally are arguing about whether physics actually apply. Mare's goal is the same as it was when it was the target for Apollo, its a young area of the moon, we can get lots of interesting data from a small area.


Yeah, which basically says so slightly it doesn't matter for your argument.


Its easy to conclude that if you don't care about math, science or physics. The moon turning faster is a BIGGER problem for the ooze theory not a smaller problem for the ooze theory. When there is no light from the sun on the moon, its below 0 degrees, so the water is frozen so no flowing water, once its gets light it heats up, melts the ice and if there is an atmosphere, which last was over 3 billion years ago, water may flow for a few minutes before it hits 7 degrees and turns to vapor. Triple point is everywhere, its the same on all planets in our solar system. At double current Mars pressure, the atmosphere the Moon had in its infancy, the moon can't have significant running water because it only exists as liquid for a few degrees, no changes in gravity, no changes in magnetic field affect that, it hard proven science, that they literally teach in high school these days. Since it lost its atmosphere over 3 Billion years ago, its had no liquid water, because the pressure is less than the triple point of water. No water, no silly ooze theory.

And I am willing to bet that this informative, interesting post will not have changed the OP's mind one whit because all he wishes to hear or read are arguments or data that support his dubious case, not those that demonstrate how impossible it is to argue for it convincingly.

Anyway, excellent and well-argued post.

 

[Dubdrifter]

Has anyone else been a bit bemused by the slightly ‘broken record’ content of this poster?

Thank you for posting possible explanations that actually make sense.

Agreed absolutely.
I think that the OP may have channels of lava in mind.

Thank you for posting possible explanations that actually make sense.

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.

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

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write an intelligent and thoughtful post on this matter.

Again, thank you for this, a thoughtful, carefully constructed and intelligently argued post which offers much food for thought.

Science and empirical evidence, I think, (are winning) except perhaps with the OP whose posts suggest a somewhat different perspective on such matters.

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.

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.

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.

A very well argued, and - more importantly, - a lucidly argued, clearly written post that is an absolute pleasure to read.
Yet, I do not expect the OP to surrender his theory or question his extraordinary and tenacious attachment to it in the face of all evidence and argument to the contrary.

Fantastic post, and an instructive and informative one, too.
Now, why do I keep thinking that every single last syllable is going to fall on very deaf ears - not to mention a mind adamantly resistant to accepting arguments that run contrary to deeply rooted preconceived but discounted theories?
And why do I keep thinking that you will read yet another post attempting to argue that liquid water flowed on the moon and caused these features?

Yes, your thoughtful post sort of echoes my own musings on the subject.
Indeed, I have asked myself (rhetorically) what on earth would be required by way of argument, evidence, proof, to compel our OP to actually question the delusional theory he clings to with such adamantine certainty?

And I am willing to bet that this informative, interesting post will not have changed the OP's mind one whit because all he wishes to hear or read are arguments or data that support his dubious case, not those that demonstrate how impossible it is to argue for it convincingly.
Anyway, excellent and well-argued post.

I think there is a name for this type of posting on Forums .... starts with an ‘s’ ..... 5 letters ending in ‘l’ but if I mention it I will get into trouble again with Moderators! (It wasn’t that ..... ‘spoil’ .... close enough)
Be good if people come up with thoughts of their own on the subject on the card, rather than just ‘cheerleading’! .... a guy I know who brown nosed his way through college ended up working in a sewage plant .... which was ironic ..... we had a real laugh about that!

I’ve heard you can earn good money writing product reviews on Amazon.

Tig must be feeling dead uncomfortable ..... If I wasn’t checking his data, it would be crossing my mind I was at some dodgy crap game with loaded dice!

 

[400]

Has anyone else been a bit bemused by the slightly ‘broken record’ content of this poster?

Nope, but watching you weave new information as it is presented into your theory has been interesting. Hence the Reg and Romans comment. Apart from the lunar day, part from the freezing point of water and its issues, apart from the no atmosphere.....

I would start with water and its properties. They are pretty well known, we did numerous experiments in school on the stuff, stuff in the stuff and with the stuff (interesting info with regards corrosion, electricity, freezing etc.) It is all documented. its properties were exploited when they walked on the moon and getting there and back (keeping it Moon orientated).

There is even a hint at old engineering books further in the thread. Many principles I started my first job on were rooted in the late 1800's and early 1900's, equipment was a lot newer the theory sound and tested or it would not have worked, whether it was Kirchoff Ohm or Faraday etc.. It is tested everyday. That is the problem with your approach I think. Water has been around for a while.

Often found books far more informed than the web.