Apologies for delayed reply-sciatic distraction. Never experienced pain quite like it! Fully recovered now. Back to the Theory ....
Dubdrifter magic again, you don't understand a paper so its wrong. You do understand thats a peer reviewed document with lots of eyes on it coming from two distinguished establishments, you need to understand how the data was used before deciding someone who doesnt understand triple point or the boiling point of water under low pressure before calling this into question. Also you are being silly, because understand this document is the only document that thinks the moon had an atmosphere capable of sustaining water. So if they are wrong, that means no atmosphere EVER. However they aren't wrong. They arent guessing, they are using every device orbiting the moon since Apollo to gather the data. I always think it hilarious that you look at a picture taken from LROC, and tell us what it is and call it science, yet actual scientists, look at the pictures and all the other data gathered from that orbiter and others and come up with what it actually is and they aren't correct, because the picture (and only the picture, because thats what you care about), tells you (and only you) something else.
So now you assume you know what I do and do not understand?Oh dear. Don’t you think you should rein it in a bit?.... this “we’re qualified, it’s peer reviewed, you’re being silly, how dare you question anything,” tack?
..... This is an open discussion thread where everybody can have an opinion on the research being proffered. Sometimes a new perspective and awkward questions from outsiders can be just what astronomers need to re-evaluate ‘sacred truths’.
If Lava Theory is based on sound data and not estimates and projections, then it should be easy to defend without resorting to derogatory comments. Isn’t it better for your argument to step out of ‘God pontification mode’ and address why you think the data is ‘accurate’?
.... Counting volcanoes(accuracy possible if all visible and not buried under the Mares) ..... estimating the thickness of the Mares(impossible to be accurate), ..... estimating the emissions(impossible to be accurate historically), ..... estimating degree of solar stripping from very limited data on magnetic field strength from rocks sampled up to time of rille formation(very low accuracy) .....
Is astronomy the only science where it is acceptable to take one solid number multiplied by 3 variables with huge potential +/- margins of error ..... and use that to GUESS the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon at the time of rille creation?..... and then use that as an argument for totally discounting Ooze Erosion on the surface of our Moon?
A lot can happen on the moon in the 2 billion years from Mares creation to rille creation .... and from that time to the present day scenario.
The Moon that has sustained significant large impact bombardment since the Mares was formed, and maybe, possibly, even a very low velocity ‘kiss’ or close encounter with Earth sometime in it’s history(still love the idea, despite Tig strangely ruling it out completely). It’s strange Tig can happily describe a scenario with a Pluto sized body bumping Mars(Post130) and barely leaving a scratch, but not our Moon gently ‘kissing’ the Earth and sticking around through mutual gravitational attraction - showing large impact damage, possible repeated ‘kiss’ damage marked in the Mares.
If Needham+ Kring’s paper could back up those projections with measurements of gases trapped in rocks at the time of rille creation ..... then these estimates would be worth more serious consideration. Until then ..... astronomers need to get a lot of decent relevant rock samples before they write their theories in ‘stone’.
The problem is: the rock sample illustrated below, no.15556, taken from a basalt exposure along the lip of Hadley Rille is dated 3.4 billion years old.
Despite having expert geologists on board these missions, NASA struggles to source lava rock they say cut the rilles 1-1.5 billion years ago.
This absence of lava residues young enough to explain their theory of rille erosion ..... is the nail in the coffin for lava theory ....logic therefore suggests either this rille was cut 3.5 billion years ago and later pyroclast ejecta was blown in to line it later ..... or ooze water cut this channel through loose ejecta exposing this area of earlier lava residue deposit during a period of amenable lingering atmosphere.
Astronomers seem certain evidence points to rilles being formed 1-1.5 billion years ago ..... so they need to tweak their atmospheric pressure predictions instead .... because accurately dated rock residues just ain’t there, Guvnor!
As you said:
This document is the only document that thinks the moon had an atmosphere capable of sustaining water. So if they are wrong, that means no atmosphere EVER. However they aren't wrong. They arent guessing, they are using every device orbiting the moon since Apollo to gather the data.
What is ‘wrong’ is Tig trying to ‘dress this data up’ as an ‘accurate’ indication of historic atmospheric pressure at the time of rille creation.
Once again I point out, Magnetic Field has nothing to do with thickness of the atmosphere, it protects the atmosphere from being stripped, also as I have pointed out to you the magnetic field you are so excited about is 1% of the weak Magnetic Field the moon originally had. So your first two arguments have no effect on the Atmosphere. Also, lunar volcanic winter (which we don't know actually happened) makes it colder, that doesnt really help you, it won't keep the temperature in some magic way between 0 and 7 degrees, and once it hits 7 degrees there is NO water.
Please don’t rephrase anything I write ..... to convey a different meaning. It’s already clear, the stronger the magnetic field, the greater the protection from stripping over a longer period, which on a VERY volcanically active Moon gives time for various gases to build up in layers of different densities causing differentials in pressure, and when huge temperature variations caused by lunar lock kick in, moderate swirling winds will be generated - which explains the smoothed lunar ‘dunes’ the rover vehicles gamboled over.
This study in 2014 suggests the lingering atmosphere was being topped up as recently as 18 million years ago:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/recent-volcanic-eruptions-moon
..... which suggests Needham and Kring’s atmospheric projections around the time of rille formation may need even more adjustment.
LOL, that was really funny there Dub. What branches of science have you worked in and studied for the last 40 odd years that taught you to disbelieve the triple point, that water and only water can flow and create channels, and that you are the ultimate decision maker on what a picture shows? Thats what I have learned from your scientific ability. I am not sure I buy that you are 60 year old scientist who is arguing these points and not understanding what he is talking about.
I’m an open type of guy and am happy to admit when there are gaps in my knowledge(wish astronomers were equally honest)..... like the Triple Point problem for water flowing on the Moon far back in it’s history and the unusual lunar locking day/night cycle problem and it’s implications ..... none of these were discussed on the science courses I studied at college ..... analytical biochemistry and microbiology.
My Dad was a geographer/geologist who taught senior high school level and was educated at Cambridge University .....so as a family we were immersed in this stuff with occassional field trips.
But this isn’t about my lack of qualification to comment .... but what is ‘accurate’ scientifically.
As regards your assumption I don’t understand liquids, pressures and boiling points mentioned in your first quote above - as a trained scuba diver who has experience in underwater archaeological excavations you don’t ignore the theory on nitrogen narcosis.
(P.S. See my new Current Events thread(2,400 yo intact Black Sea wreck- Prof Jon Adams ran a project I worked on coincidentally-I wouldn’t normally mention it, but when people make derogatory comments, the assumptions need correcting .... nice timing).
Actually that 10 year old article is about a study finished years ago, and doesn't really say what you are saying. It describes different ways they are doing checking for the air pressure, in billion year old rocks and rain drops.
So what am I saying that’s different to the article? Please tell me, I’m interested?
This study may be 10 years old, but the science is still solid, and probably a more accurate way of determining historic atmospheric pressure than projected data when so many other variables may upset the mathematics.
[Thinking aloud, I doubt if you could apply the other element of analysis in the article, ‘raindrop theory’ to measurements of meteor impact craters - too many variables and unknowns - entry velocity for instance].
You keep thinking that astronomers are the ones analyzing the rocks, etc, Geologists analyze the rocks, literally the only real scientist to walk on the moon was a geologist. Marshall has more different types of scientists working there then most anyplace on the planet (so does, Houston and JPL for that matter). Acting like the Astronomers are confused by the rocks, is just silly. We have a few 100 lbs of rocks brought back from the moon, none of which show your magic atmosphere or that the atmosphere ever could have flowing rivers, so you think they need to find more, I think you need to realize they don't exist.
Where do you get the impression I don’t know who does what in scientific analysis? Geologists give astronomers the hard data on rock analysis - astronomers use this older rock data to create a “fantasy” projection they think applies 2 billion years later!..... they are the ones that should be honest, hold their hands up and say, ..... “currently we have insufficient data to give an accurate reading of lunar atmospheric pressure at the time we currently believe most rilles may have been formed”.
It’s quite possible for the lunar atmosphere to have been stripped away rapidly in the last 1billion years since rille creation ..... as surface vulcanism died radically, as the core magnetic dynamo seriously weakened and Earth’s gaussian protective blanket also weakened.
Again liquid water cannot exist without an atmosphere, even with the Atmosphere that the paper you now think is wrong says, water would boil away at 7 degrees. The Moon has never had an atmosphere strong enough for weather, which is required to create a water canyon. Thats the only way you can continually get water to the source to flow down and create the canal, and that only works if you magically can get the temperature to stay between 0 and 7 degrees at the pressure the moon once had
Whose ever talked about the need for weather systems? ..... the SV ‘canyon’ Primary Cut shows residues, so is most likely cut by a large vent from the Herodotus eruption - The other ‘canals’ are minor - ooze can happily carve/dissolve those over 2 billion years - even with triple point restriction - no problem. It’s very loose ejecta easily eroded/dissolved ..... I say ‘dissolved’ because let’s be realistic, some volcanic condensate could possibly be chemically quite corrosive - as you know, some volcanic lakes on Earth you just don’t swim in.
......Imagine these chemicals leaking from the fractured gas chambers I’ve described, running on top of the cooled Mares but below the surface of the very loose pyroclast ejecta, dissolving the subsurface ejecta, eventually evapourating, leaving fine deposit ..... gradually the ejecta settles and over 2 billion years a rille is formed ..... no lava residues visible except a little dissolved basalt staining from exposed edges of the Mares ..... no surface water ‘stream’ patterns visible like we see on Mars .... just a subtle evapouration end point marking the final reach of this subsurface dissolving process .
Your entire new Ooze theory is based on liquid water breaking out form Lava tubes, you don't seem to understand that it would be much more likely for LAVA to come out of lava tubes as everyone has figured out.
Most eruptions we are told, have a wide area of liquified rock full of trapped gases creating a labyrinth of gas pockets that just fail to puncture the hardened surface. As the system cools, water, a major biproduct of rock liquifaction(that created our seas) condenses under pressure and collects in large volumes in these chambers, released by proximal meteor impact fracturing and gravitational ‘heave’ from lunar lock.
No actually its not for those actually doing it. Also please don't mention Gauss or Gaussian ever again, since you have Absolutely no idea what Gaussian is.
You have got a cheek. Having studied all the major sciences, you now assume Gaussian effects are somehow beyond my comprehension?! [Climb out of your ivory tower, the altitude has gone to your head].
If you recall Post 124, I introduced the idea into this thread. It’s not difficult to assume there might be a protective blanket effect of an increased Earth’s magnetic field protecting our Moon at the time of rille creation. In Post 130 you happily admitted you hadn’t calculated the effect that might have - and labelled it “gaussian” - a term I happily adopted - I am still awaiting the results of those calculations.
We know from the magnetism detected in Apollo 15 sample no.15498 that the field was much stronger than predicted ..... Somehow I don’t think your figures will be accurate because it is impossible to know accurately what the distance was between the Earth and Moon at that time.
We have that, a great paper with lots of sources and lots of review. Its a document you have used to "prove" ooze theory, but now that we have actually looked at what it means as compared to your theory, its wrong, bad science, you dont know why its that, but you are sure it is, because it doesnt prove your theory.
It’s a good paper when it measures what happened over 3 billion years ago ...... it’s projection may possibly have weaknesses for the period of rille creation because it doesn’t reference all the new info on lingering magnetic field/lingering eruptions or have atmospheric pressure calculated rock data from that period to support that ‘projection’.
Because the data from all the sources (not just looking at pictures) supports the martian theories. We have data dating all the way back to Viking and all the data Maven is sending us, and they look at all that data and previous analysis and we get new theories.
Like the one in the last paragraph of your Post 165 that says a large moon or Pluto size planet may have hit Mars and triggered a new wave of volcanic activity to create an atmosphere and shift Triple Point on the Martian surface enough to create lakes, rivers and possibly more? ..... Yet when Dubdrifter(a non-astronomer) says there is evidence the same may have happened on our Moon, but to a much lesser degree in the form of relatively insignificant oozings, ..... suddenly those scenarios are impossible!
Only to you is it still a question, we don't have rain clouds on the moon, so your entire theory that water flowed and created a canyon can't be true, now your theory is that Lava channels, (filled with Magic ooze) collapsed and created Rille's. These are the same lava channels that couldnt collapse and create the canyons when filled with lava, but filled with magic ooze they do it, even though liquid water can't exist without pressure -Tig
You really shouldn’t post in a hurry. Please read my points carefully. Let me repeat, I have never mentioned this is a weather related phenomenon! ....nor that rilles are collapsed lava tubes or channels - that is your theory, remember?.
Oh, .... and the ooze isn’t “Magic”...... it’s a very real scientifically viable idea .... just volcanic liquid condensate related to the liquified rock region it came from ..... if that produces clear Volvic-style drinking water, BINGO! (P.S.other brands possibly also available close to the lunar surface. P.P.S. No advertising revenue was received from this unintentional promotion).
So in Summary: ..... Despite Tig’s referenced article being published in Nov 2017 .... it’s taken an agonising 9 months since Feb to get astronomers to conclude “the moon once had an atmosphere capable of sustaining water” ...... we just need new rock data to take the last step and prove ooze could erode most rilles after 95% of vulcanism had died down .
My guess is both theories are valid for different scenarios - take SV ...
It’s not the first time a geological feature started off as a lava cut channel, then water took over to redefine it’s contours.
Over and out.
