It’s strange, whatever scientific research I have highlighted and present over these last few months to suggest most lunar rilles might be water eroded and not carved by lava, I’ve been accused of ignoring scientific facts, physics and maths. The science has come from reputable sources, so what is your beef? ..... take it up with the scientists concerned.
All I am doing is take that science and observation and use it in an argument to try and change the historic conditions on the Moon, to shift the Moon’s personal Triple Point stats (not to break the rules of Triple Point Theory itself) ..... so that every rille on the Near Side of our Moon doesn’t have to have a volcano vent event at it’s source or an end that neatly disappears into the Mares leaving NO RESIDUES in most instances ..... at a time when volcanism was supposed to be seriously dying down in it’s history.
So can we please move on from this assumption there is ‘no science’ in my argument .... especially from someone who has been proven to have added absolutely ZERO scientific contributions to this discussion over 7 pages.
Other planets and Moons, particularly Mars, have engineered a window for low viscosity liquid flow to erode very similar patterns on their surfaces. The moon once had similar conditions to Mars, even Earth, in it’s history ..... engineering a history of temperature, pressure and atmosphere during the period of rille formation .... to explain these very similar erosion patterns(except for the deep canyon primary cut of SV).
It is not difficult to see the differences between water erosion and lava erosion. Let’s summise I am wrong in my interpretation of some of the rilles.
Because the
other lunar erosion patterns suggest they have been cut by a liquid of low viscosity that has left no residues and has since EVAPORATED. ..... the No.1 contender found locked in lunar rock .... is water.
If there was
just ONE rille on the surface that exhibited those characteristics, astronomer’s would have to computer model a new scenario for the Moon’s history around that period overcoming the present Triple Point hurdle. But my view is there are many rilles pointing at an evaporated cutting/dissolving agent, especially in the Rima Prinz area ..... so why are astronomers prevaricating? Obviously my inexperienced intuitive view is irrelevant, but Learned Astronomers and even Lunar Geologists have seriously found it difficult to fit lava into some of these scenarios.
Tig has admitted there is a serious gap in the sample record around the time of rille creation, which is partly why the very important MARE mission to the Aristarchus Crater area discussed in this thread has been proposed.
But it’s because scientists see the Moon’s evolution as an important marker and clue as to how the Solar System evolved that has boosted the importance of this mission - confirming water once flowed on the Moon’s surface ..... is just the bonus ball.
If they can hit water reserves down there, near the Cobra’s Head, whilst collecting samples, that wouldn’t do any harm.
The main problem is the super rich exploitative people bullying this planet will probably push us and the life on our Earth towards runaway extinction long before we can take ‘a Second giant leap for Mankind’.
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.
To the layman, trying to make sense of how our incredibly diverse Solar System evolved from the two types of ‘uncertain’ accretion theories proposed, scrambles the logic..... when Jupiter, it’s moon’s, Venus, our Earth are so different in outcome, with such varied temperature, pressure and gas atmospheres - historically as well - and with new discoveries changing theory continuously .... it’s important to keep an open mind on Moon history too.
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.
Yes, I recall saying
repeatedly volcanism ‘created’ the atmosphere, magnetism retained it. But you are wrong to assume it lost it 3 billion years ago .... because the scientific papers/articles I have highlighted clearly cite evidence ....despite limited rock samples being available to analyse from that period ...... that not only was the Moon’s core magnetic field ‘retainer’ still in place 1-2.2 billion years ago ..... but the Earth’s protective gaussian blanket was also much stronger 1 billion years ago.
Scientifically proven. And logic therefore suggests, the residual atmosphere was still intact working it’s magic to shift Triple Point.
.... a likelyhood yet to be proven.
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.
Didn’t you read it in the article I quoted?! Post 146:
“
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”.
I dragged the quote off the page especially because I was concerned some were ‘glossing over’ the Links and not seeing the key sentences that made up my argument. Strange you were able to ‘gloss over’ this point highlighted as well! I’m not going to be too critical ....
you’ve more than engaged fully in everything else for which I am very grateful you have taken the time and effort ..... [Another on here, by his name and presence clearly wins the ‘Glossing Over Award’ ..... not just on this thread, but every other Macrumours Space thread I’ve hosted. If my science references are as bad as he makes out, can’t imagine why he takes the time to hang around and comment repeatedly. Never knew Macrumours had quality controllers to vet content.
]
P.S. Here is another two clues the Moon might have once been closer to the Earth!
And this one below
probably shows from middle left progressing to top left, an impact, rotation, gravitation pull, small collision, rotation, gravitational pull, smaller collision rotation etc etc with Mare fill from the disturbance filling in the cracks later.
Below is a suggestion the Poles may have shifted drastically with some of these collisions-see the middle band of crater impact on the Near Side:
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.
So there are serious gaps in the geological record around the time of rille creation?......(which makes your argument a little bit flakey to say the least - seeing as you are being so derogatory about the science I am highlighting!) ...... this ‘gap’ I’m highlighting to make my argument, illustrates clearly a part reason for the importance of the MARE Mission.
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.
It would help better if you or your colleagues could theorise, just for fun, a computer model history for the lunwr rille creation period that shifted 0-7 degrees to let water flow and erode all rilles but SV Primary Cut.
Bearing in mind a stronger magnetic field existed. Engineering in greater proximity to Earth, increased rotation(see explanation below why I still think this helps), lunar winter etc etc ..... all factors mentioned in this debate and others I missed off my radar.
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.
Haven’t we established changing the magnetic field and gravity in itself doesn’t change atmospheric pressure, but increases gas retainment? .... so increase in gas density coupled with temperature variation is what alters atmospheric pressure ..... surely this is basic weather theory?!
P.S. I’ve repeatedly agreed SV Primary Cut Canyon is likely 99% lava cut .... it’s the Secondary Cut and other rilles that are disputed now.
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
Some astronomy theory suggests some astronomer’s imaginations are still on Pandora ..... at least my theory is bound around highlighting good scientific research ..... we will see - after the results of the MARE Mission if the way I’ve joined the dots between those bits of evidence is ‘flakey’ or maybe not?
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.
Oh.... I thought it was a significant amount to damage Ooze Theory? .... glad to hear the atmosphere was more intact than I suspected. That helps significantly ..... especially when these atmospheric conditions were similar to those on Mars ..... where water flowed copiously.
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.
...... to fill in the gaps around rille creation, which still strangely exist despite having visited Hadley Rille.
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.
The evidence showing basaltic eruptions and rille formation, according to Tig, just being on the locked Near Side, clearly shows the effect proximity to strong Earth’s gravity has had on the Near surface of our Moon ..... affected the lunar crust, in combination with meteorite impact ‘softening’ around water condensate lava tubes, enough to create the ‘sensible’ Ooze Theory I am proposing.
If gravity effects can so cut up the lunar surface, imagine what the historical braking effects could have been on a more rapidly spinning body that might have been much closer to Earth, with a much denser atmosphere. (See signs below from the lunar North Pole suggesting Lunar Spin was much faster in it’s ancient history)
And from the South Pole below, swirl not so pronounced- but giant Earth collision impact very visible bottom right:
Maybe the current slow movement away, seen in only centimetres today, is just the final gradual settling after the turbulent post-Impact Years ..... and the current baking and cooling effects of the long lunar day/night cycle that make water erosion so difficult for astronomers to imagine beyond 0-7 degrees in lunar history .... is just a more recent phenomenon .... when the lunar day/night cycle was less extreme, and maybe even lunar icecaps were a reality, like on Mars - instead of just pools of ice in craters. Now there’s a thought!
That sentence alone may get scientists looking at the lunar Poles to check for signs of glacier erosion!
.... because it’s happened on Mars:
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2014/pdf/2467.pdf
The people who complain of the lack of science in my posts and the stupidity of my argument or even my threads ..... need to click on the Links .... that proves the contrary.
Radical thinking is about throwing out challenges to get people to think ‘out the box’ (but not totally illogically- there is a difference here) .... without these discussions, science or ‘science fiction’ doesn’t move forward ..... and astronomers repeatedly falling at the hurdle of Lunar Triple Point is a sad sight to see ..... because without ‘science fiction’ ..... so many of them wouldn’t have a cushy career .... and they would have to do poorly paid, repetitive boring, manual slave labour ..... like the rest of us mere mortals ....if we can get it, as we scrabble around in a Western World where indigenous peoples are marginalised and pushed out of work.(An argument for another thread in another section).
