How this Martian moon became the 'Death Star'

How this Martian moon became the 'Death Star'
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers have demonstrated for the first time how an asteroid or comet could have caused the mega crater on Phobos without completely destroying the Martian moon. Credit: Viking Project, JPL, NASA

Mars' largest moon, Phobos, has captured public imagination and been shrouded in mystery for decades. But numerical simulations recently conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) have shed some light on the enigmatic satellite.

The dominant feature on the surface of Phobos (22-kilomters across) is Stickney crater (9-km across), a mega crater that spans nearly half the moon. The crater lends Phobos a physical resemblance to the planet-destroying Death Star in the film "Star Wars." But over the decades, understanding the formation of such a massive crater has proven elusive for researchers.

For the first time, physicists at LLNL have demonstrated how an asteroid or comet impact could have created Stickney crater without destroying Phobos completely. The research, which also debunks a theory regarding the moon's mysterious grooved terrain, was published in Geophysical Review Letters.

"We've demonstrated that you can create this crater without destroying the moon if you use the proper porosity and resolution in a 3D simulation," said Megan Bruck Syal, an author on the paper and member of the LLNL planetary defense team. "There aren't many places with the computational resources to accomplish the resolution study we conducted."

The study showed that there is a range of possible solutions for the size and speed of the impactor, but Syal says one possible scenario is an impact object 250 meters across traveling close to 6 kilometers per second (kps).

This animation shows one scenario for how the massive crater Stickney could have formed, with a 200-meter object impacting at 8 kps into the 20-km-wide moon. The colored material is moving fast enough to evacuate the forming crater, and the red is moving quickly enough to entirely escape Phobos. Credit: LLNL

Previous studies used 2D simulations at lower resolutions, and they were ultimately unable to replicate Stickney crater successfully. Additionally, prior studies failed to account for the porosity of the Phobos' crust in their calculations, critical given that Phobos is less dense than the Martian surface.

While the simulations show how a massive impact could have created Stickney crater, they also appear to disprove a related theory. Some have theorized that the hundreds of that appear to radiate from the crater were caused by the impact. However, the simulations in this study show that fracture patterns in the crust of Phobos would be nothing like the straight, long, parallel grooves. On the other hand, the simulations do support the possibility of slow-rolling boulders mobilized by the impact causing the grooves. But more study would be required to fully test that theory.

The research served as a benchmarking exercise for the LLNL planetary defense team in their use of an open source code developed at LLNL called Spheral. The team uses codes like Spheral to simulate various methods of deflecting potentially hazardous Earth-bound asteroids.

"Something as big and fast as what caused the Stickney crater would have a devastating effect on Earth," Syal said. "If NASA sees a potentially hazardous asteroid coming our way, it will be essential to make sure we're able to deflect it. We'll only have one shot at it, and the consequences couldn't be higher. We do this type of benchmarking research to make sure our codes are right when they will be needed most."

The foundation this research is built upon is decades of investment in LLNL computational capabilities used to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent in the absence of nuclear testing - commonly known as stockpile stewardship. This research was also funded in part by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at LLNL.

The study was spearheaded by Jared Rovny, a summer student visiting from Yale University. Other co-authors include LLNL computational physicist Mike Owen, who supported the research by mentoring Rovny and aligning the study to benchmark the Spheral code, and Paul Miller, who leads the planetary defense team at LLNL. Syal conducted followup modeling to confirm the findings and wrote the published paper. She will give a talk on the paper in Pasadena this month during the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division of Planetary Science.


Explore further

Anomalous grooves on Martian moon Phobos explained by impacts

More information: Geophysical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070749
Citation: How this Martian moon became the 'Death Star' (2016, October 12) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-10-martian-moon-death-star.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 12, 2016
Not sure about the Death Star - reminds me more of this:
http://www.imageb...09145137

Oct 12, 2016
"They killed Phobos!"
"B*stards!"

Oct 12, 2016
Electric discharge can explain the "mega"-crater (author must be Canadian) and the rilles, not to mention numerous other morphologies.

Oct 12, 2016
Electric discharge can explain the "mega"-crater (author must be Canadian) and the rilles, not to mention numerous other morphologies.


No it can't. Please provide a link to the work saying that it can. I must have missed it.

Oct 12, 2016
@cantdrive85
I'm curious - what could create an electrical discharge in space? Where would it ground to?
(Or an alternative I just thought of, if this is the putative ground-point, where would it originate?)

Oct 13, 2016
Electric discharge can explain the "mega"-crater (author must be Canadian) and the rilles, not to mention numerous other morphologies.


No it can't. Please provide a link to the work saying that it can. I must have missed it.

This is not surprising being you are unfamiliar with electrochemistry in plasmas among numerous other plasma phenomena. Try here;
http://benthamope...-185.pdf

Oct 13, 2016
@cantdrive85
I'm curious - what could create an electrical discharge in space? Where would it ground to?
(Or an alternative I just thought of, if this is the putative ground-point, where would it originate?)


You won't get anything even vaguely qualitative, let alone quantitative! It'll probably involve Z-pinches or Birkeland currents, or whatever is the phrase-du-jour at Thunderdolts is at the moment.
I managed to find one paper by a C. J. Ransom, published in the Bentham Open Astronomy Journal. One of 5 EU 'papers' in a special issue. Edited by well known EU supporter Jeremy Dunning-Davies!
Anyhow, he never specifies where the z-pinch is coming from, and is essentially saying, "look, my plasma discharge mini craters look like real ones." Bit pointless really. Cited by one other, but not in favour of his hypothesis. I found a reference to a 2007 paper by the same author, plus the idiot Thornhill. Can't find that anywhere, paywalled or otherwise.

Oct 13, 2016
Electric discharge can explain the "mega"-crater (author must be Canadian) and the rilles, not to mention numerous other morphologies.


No it can't. Please provide a link to the work saying that it can. I must have missed it.

This is not surprising being you are unfamiliar with electrochemistry in plasmas among numerous other plasma phenomena. Try here;
http://benthamope...-185.pdf


See above!! :)
Also see this thread at ISF for a review of that particular 'journal':
http://www.intern...=bentham


Oct 13, 2016
I should mention that Tom Bridgman and the poster formerly known as Nereid did an unofficial peer review of that issue (given that it was obvious that no official peer review had taken place):

This is the one on Ransom's paper:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/electric-universe-peer-review-exercise.html

Oct 13, 2016
Actually, that link above is fuxxed. So, here is what they basically said:

Here's a few of the questions immediately raised by this paper which the author does not answer but which are well established by impact researchers.

What energies were needed to form pits of a specified size? There is no graph of the relationship of input energy and crater diameter and/or depth.

What is the detailed crater profile created by the arc? How does it vary with current and/or voltage?

The author ignores the implications of their arc formation model for large-scale cratering. How much energy is needed to produce craters of large size (10-100 km diameters)? Where does the energy come from?

[cont...]

Oct 13, 2016
[cont...]

We have lots of examples of objects moving around the solar system that can impact with other objects and can release many megaton equivalents of energy at a localized point of impact such as Shoemaker-Levy 9. We have no such examples of electric discharges or arcs that can deliver an equivalent energy density on such a large scale.

The author mentions the problem of corona crater formations on Venus, but his reference is a bit out of date: See Subduction initiation by thermal chemical plumes: Numerical studies http://adsabs.har...71..296U

Oct 13, 2016
I think the electric cratering proposal is best summed up by the post from Ben M in the ISF thread I linked earlier:

""Here are some photos of broken windshields. Here is an experiment where I strike a windshield with the claw of the SUPPOSEDLY EXTINCT GIANT SLOTH. Note the similarity! This motivates further searches for a relic giant sloth population in the parking lot at the Costco."

:)

Oct 13, 2016
I should mention that Tom Bridgman and the poster formerly known as Nereid did an unofficial peer review of that issue.

LOL, TB's knowledge of real plasma physics is on par with your own, electrochemistry anyone. How about sputtering, glow discharge? That's what I thought.
See Subduction initiation by thermal chemical plumes

Of course, more "dark" explanations.
I think the electric cratering proposal is best summed up by the post from Ben M in the ISF thread I linked earlier

Do you smell smoke? Careful! Why am I not surprised you think a strawman is a good summation.

Oct 13, 2016
"simulations do support the possibility of slow-rolling boulders mobilized by the impact causing the grooves."

"Mark's Groovy Theory" is looking better all the time!

http://phys.org/n...bos.html

After a large, off-center impact formed Stickney Crater, Phobos received enough angular momentum (was spinning fast enough) that the secondary ejecta (mostly rocks ejected from Stickney Crater) created PARALLEL (not radial) grooves and chains of pits as those rocks rolled and bounced over and through the rotating surface of Phobos.

Key facts: 1. the escape velocity of Phobos is only ~25 mph, so Phobos would not have to spin very fast; 2. Stickney is a very large crater relative to Phobos, and the primary impactor could have imparted significant angular momentum; 3. statistically, an off-center impact is the most likely scenario; 4. this results in parallel grooves at all latitudes, as we see on Phobos, ...

Oct 13, 2016
An earlier entry for "Mark's Groovy Theory" from May 28, 2015:

http://www.space....oto.html

Oct 13, 2016
I should mention that Tom Bridgman and the poster formerly known as Nereid did an unofficial peer review of that issue.


Give it a rest you cretin. You've shown that your (and everybody else's at EUs) knowledge of plasma astrophysics is pretty much non-existent. I even had to correct your misconceptions of what Alfven actually said. Your 'electrochemistry' was, yet again, in a human controlled experiment at very high density, that didn't in any way resemble what I was actually asking for, i.e. cometary conditions.
You think the solar wind is a discharge. Fine, nobody working in the field calls it that. You think mechanical sputtering by SW ions is an electrical event. Fine. Nobody within that field treats it as such. You, and the idiot Thornhill, think SW H+ will combine with O ions to form OH at 400 km/s. Fine, nobody else does.
Your cratering nonsense has no mechanism. Just the usual x looks like y pareidolia. You belong to a quasi-religious cult. Glass houses, eh?

Oct 13, 2016
@cd,
Do you smell smoke? Careful! Why am I not surprised you think a strawman is a good summation.


Well, go one better than the author of the previously linked nonsense, and give us a mechanism that matches known science, plus observation. Bear in mind Tom Bridgman's questions about this mechanism while you dream it up. X looks like Y is not a hypothesis, by the way.

Oct 13, 2016
Whilst we await cantthink's quantitative description of electrical cratering, here is what the high priest of the Invisible Lightning Bolts (the idiot Thornhill) has to say:

"Electric discharges between closely approaching bodies takes the form of "thunderbolts of the gods", or distinctively shaped helical plasmoids. Such plasmoids were sculpted by many ancient cultures when depicting Jupiter hurling his thunderbolt."

So, that's it folks. The hypothesis is based on Velikovskian 'thunderbolts'! I was going to say 'you really couldn't make this sh*t up.' However, he obviously did!

http://www.holosc...atering/

Oct 13, 2016
And if you don't believe Wal's fiction, take note:

"And for the sceptics, subdued electric arc machining of a planet-sized body continues to this day on Jupiter's innermost moon, Io."

No Wal, that's volcanism, you fuxxwit!

But........

"Planetary geologists are not trained to recognize electric arc scarring otherwise they would have seen at a glance the characteristic cathodic surface erosion and cathode jets on Io. They are definitely not volcanos as we know them from geology textbooks."

Well, that's us told, eh?

Oct 14, 2016
No Wal, that's volcanism, you fuxxwit!

You have the tact and adroitness of an autistic crack baby.

What does the science have to say about it?
http://www.nasa.g...ced.html
Hmmm, it would seem as if the "volcanoes" are in the wrong place.

Then there is this nugget;
http://spacefligh...oimages/

Ahhh yes, the mystery of the wandering plume. I think I've seen this before, wasn't Vesuvius closer to Rome in the past?


Oct 14, 2016
I even had to correct your misconceptions of what Alfven actually said.

Right, when he said MHD may be valid for very specific regions. Yet you take that as carte blanche to use MHD to describe all astrophysical plasmas. And I have misconceptions? Hardly.

You think the solar wind is a discharge. Fine, nobody working in the field calls it that. You think mechanical sputtering by SW ions is an electrical event. Fine. Nobody within that field treats it as such.

Because they're astrophysicists relying on their fanciful thought experiments and maths equations which we know from experiments don't work.

Oct 14, 2016
Funny you should mention Vesuvius, given that the Campo Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields) are 15 miles away and consist of a cluster of areas that have all played host to eruptions in the last 39,000 years. Apparently volcanic zones do shift around despite your contention to the contrary.

Oct 14, 2016
^^^^All of which is totally irrelevant to electrical cratering. As I pointed out elsewhere, even Peratt knows those volcanoes are due to tidal heating. And as the press release says, all it means is that HOW the tidal heating is expressed as volcanism at the surface will require new models. That it is volcanism is indisputable. To the scientifically literate. As they say: "The magnetometer instrument on NASA's Galileo mission detected a magnetic field around Io, suggesting the presence of a global subsurface magma ocean..........Our analysis supports a global subsurface magma ocean scenario as one possible explanation for the offset between predicted and observed volcano locations on Io."

As for Wal,.....well I think my description is quite accurate. I could provide more scientific illiteracy and mythological gobbledegook to back it up.

So, in short, there is no quantitative model for electric cratering? Just Velikovskian woo?

Oct 14, 2016
Right, when he said MHD may be valid for very specific regions. Yet you take that as carte blanche to use MHD to describe all astrophysical plasmas. And I have misconceptions? Hardly.


Nope, I only use it for comets. It's where you came unstuck, trying to call a diamagnetic cavity a double layer. A cavity is the natural result of the IMF 'hanging up', and being compressed. Alfven came up with the frozen-in idea. It is also valid at Mars and Venus.

Because they're astrophysicists relying on their fanciful thought experiments and maths equations which we know from experiments don't work.


Really? Like to link to some of that? I can show you thousands of papers on the SW; nobody calls it a discharge. Want links to SW mechanical sputtering? Nobody calling that electrical, either.
You're definition is so vague as to be scientifically useless. As mentioned before.


Oct 14, 2016
Funny you should mention Vesuvius, given that the Campo Flegrei (Phlegraean Fields) are 15 miles away and consist of a cluster of areas that have all played host to eruptions in the last 39,000 years. Apparently volcanic zones do shift around despite your contention to the contrary.

There are a couple differences. First, Prometheus has moved over 50 miles in 10-20 years, your example of 39k years is meaningless. Also, according to the data, Prometheus has been consistently active over the entire period. There is nothing that would suggest that it stopped here and started over there 50 some odd miles away.

Oct 14, 2016
all it means is that HOW the tidal heating is expressed as volcanism at the surface will require new models. That it is volcanism is indisputable.

* Add convenient "dark" explanation here... Indisputable in your own feeble mind.

Oct 14, 2016
* Add convenient "dark" explanation here... Indisputable in your own feeble mind.


Why didn't you do a bit of research on the press release you linked to ? A paper was mentioned. The author's name was mentioned. So; Hamilton; Io; Volcanism, typed into Google Scholar for articles post 2013, gets you the paper. It also gets you a follow up from 2015, where they model Io with a magma ocean beneath the crust, rather that the previous models which had only considered a solid body. Guess what? No longer a problem.
http://iopscience.../22/meta
And, yes, I would say images of volcanoes are pretty good evidence for volcanoes! What do you think? Whereas your feeble minded electric cratering still doesn't have a mechanism, nor has it ever been seen. Nor written up. Other than 'Thunderbolts of the Gods'! on a crank's site. Lol.

Oct 14, 2016
Hmmm... let's see. Surface gravity only 18% that of Earth's, erupting into an almost perfect vacuum, enormous Jovian-induced tides, lava with an unusually high sulfur content... Yes, that all suggests that Io volcanoes must act exactly like Earth volcanoes.

Oct 14, 2016
Right, when he said MHD may be valid for very specific regions. Yet you take that as carte blanche to use MHD to describe all astrophysical plasmas. And I have misconceptions? Hardly.


And you'll find that current plasma astrophysicists would tell you that it is, in fact, very difficult to break down the frozen-in condition. So it is actually valid for quite a large number of scenarios. The models they use these days are often hybrid, and far more sophisticated than used when Alfven cautioned against it in certain situations. Alfven's been dead for 20 years; things have moved on.
Anyway, where are the quantitative, competing EU analyses? Sorry, that would involve awkward stuff, like knowing what you're talking about, a suitable degree, and maths. So never going to happen, eh?

Oct 14, 2016
So, in short, there is no quantitative model for electric cratering? Just Velikovskian woo?


I'll repeat this, as they have a habit of trying to divert the topic when evidence is asked for.

Oct 14, 2016
Why didn't you do a bit of research on the press release you linked to ? A paper was mentioned. The author's name was mentioned. So; Hamilton; Io; Volcanism, typed into Google Scholar for articles post 2013, gets you the paper. It also gets you a follow up from 2015, where they model Io with a magma ocean beneath the crust.

Of course, the "dark" magma ocean guess. Why didn't I think of that.

Oct 14, 2016
And you'll find that current plasma astrophysicists would tell you that it is, in fact, very difficult to break down the frozen-in condition. So it is actually valid for quite a large number of scenarios.

Thanks for verification of my claim, and your (and astrophysicists) utter ignorance of 60 years of in situ measurements of near Earth plasmas. Even the hybrid patch models are utter failures in explaining reality.

Oct 14, 2016
Hmmm... let's see. Surface gravity only 18% that of Earth's, erupting into an almost perfect vacuum, enormous Jovian-induced tides, lava with an unusually high sulfur content... Yes, that all suggests that Io volcanoes must act exactly like Earth volcanoes.

Why didn't you bring it up then?

Oct 14, 2016
I did, almost 4 years ago.
http://phys.org/n...ric.html

Oct 14, 2016

Of course, the "dark" magma ocean guess. Why didn't I think of that.


Can't you read, idiot? They measured a magnetic field which implies its existence. What would you like them to do, dig down and find it?
How is the hunt for evidence of these 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' coming along? People in glass houses, eh?

Oct 14, 2016

Thanks for verification of my claim, and your (and astrophysicists) utter ignorance of 60 years of in situ measurements of near Earth plasmas. Even the hybrid patch models are utter failures in explaining reality.


So what have the Alfven fanboys done in comparison? Where are their results so that we can compare? Would like to see them. Links please.
You're still in your glass house. Difficult to criticise, when you believe in Velikovskian woo, and have done zero science yourselves, right?
To the EU fruit loops in general: why don't you put up, or shut up? Ever wondered why you are treated with such disdain? All talk, no do. 'No do', in this case, should really read 'cannot do'.

Oct 14, 2016
hanks for verification of my claim, and your (and astrophysicists) utter ignorance of 60 years of in situ measurements of near Earth plasmas. Even the hybrid patch models are utter failures in explaining reality.


Says you. Who believed in the electric comet crap, and all sorts of electric woo happening to explain stuff for which we already had evidence. Thinks H+ SW ions are somehow going to combine with non-existent O- ions at 400 km/s, to somehow form OH! Didn't even bother computing the energetics of such, nor looking at the flux involved. Just accepted it, 'cos the idiot Thornhill thought it up.
You are in no position to criticise anybody when it comes to science, as you have only a very vague and extremely warped idea of what it actually is.


Oct 14, 2016
Can't you read, idiot? They measured a magnetic field which implies its existence.

It implies nothing other than there is a magnetic field and the electric currents to produce it. And lo and behold, there is an electric current connecting Io to Jupiter.
The Io Dynamo, no magma necessary...
http://www.phy6.o...wio.html

Oct 14, 2016
Can't you read, idiot? They measured a magnetic field which implies its existence.

It implies nothing other than there is a magnetic field and the electric currents to produce it. And lo and behold, there is an electric current connecting Io to Jupiter.
The Io Dynamo, no magma necessary...
http://www.phy6.o...wio.html


Complete rubbish. You're just grasping at straws, because you can't figure out a mechanism for this electric cratering rubbish to somehow produce volcanoes (as imaged; not craters). It's pathetic, but typical of the usual crap we expect from EU delusionists.
If you'd done a bit more research (a foreign concept to EU, I realise), you would have found this:
http://www.es.ucs...a_Io.pdf
Do you seriously think they wouldn't have taken the induced magnetic field into account? Seriously?
These are *actual* scientists doing the research, not the idiot Thornhill!

Oct 14, 2016
You're just grasping at straws, because you can't figure out a mechanism for this electric cratering rubbish to somehow produce volcanoes (as imaged; not craters).

Have you ever done any welding? Electric discharge can excavate and deposit. In addition to that the forces involved can lift the surface into mounds that resemble volcanoes. It can also explain the extreme temperatures observed which are much hotter than any terrestrial lava.

Oct 15, 2016
Have you ever done any welding? Electric discharge can excavate and deposit. In addition to that the forces involved can lift the surface into mounds that resemble volcanoes. It can also explain the extreme temperatures observed which are much hotter than any terrestrial lava.


Oh, so it's welding now? Jesus, you people never give up in your evidence-free, procrustean attempts to force fit everything into Thornhill's Velikovskian delusions, do you?
I see this paper: http://pirlwww.lp...us13.pdf
and I see nobody suggesting the temperatures are at all anomalous. And from what I remember from one of my degree courses, water inclusion will lower the temperature at which rock will melt. Earth has rather a lot of water, even in the mantle.
Apart from all that, you still don't have a mechanism, nor observation. Which is a moot point, as nobody would take this nonsense the least bit seriously.


Oct 15, 2016
You do understand welding is an arc discharge. An arc discharge could easilly explain the 3100degF observed temperatures, lava not so much. You know, a plasma discharge or electric discharge, different terminology for the same processes.

Oct 15, 2016
You do understand welding is an arc discharge. An arc discharge could easilly explain the 3100degF observed temperatures, lava not so much. You know, a plasma discharge or electric discharge, different terminology for the same processes.


Why do we need these invisible discharges, when it is plain for all but the blind to see that they are bloody volcanoes? The mechanism is there (you haven't got one), observation is there (you haven't got any), and I don't see any temperature anomalies. 3100F is around 1700 C, which is not mentioned in that paper. That was 2013, so I doubt there is anything more recent.
They look like volcanoes, and they behave like volcanoes. There is a ton of evidence. There are IR pictures of the glowing lava, with no thunderbolts to be seen. Cassini practically flew over the top of some, and nothing was seen. It is complete and utter nonsense. Nobody believes it. For good reason.
Google Occam's razor, i.e. parsimony.

Oct 15, 2016
Re 1700 C, you may have read the part that says:

"McEwen et al (1998b) reported brightness temperatures of 1500–1800 K, and Davies et al. (2001) quoted a temperature of 1870 K during the 1997 eruption at Pillan. Later work by Keszthelyi et al. (2007) suggested that these temperatures should be lowered by ~260 K, placing the temperatures within the basaltic regime."

So no anomalies. And as I said, water inclusion will lower temperatures of some melts on Earth. Whether water is present in Io's mantle I have no idea, but kind of doubt it.

Oct 15, 2016
You do understand welding is an arc discharge
@cantread
uhm.. no, "Welding" is: 1. To join (metals) by applying heat, sometimes with pressure and sometimes with an intermediate or filler metal having a high melting point.
2. To bring into close association or union
http://www.thefre.../welding

https://www.brita.../welding

or, more commonly known as: "a fabrication or sculptural process that joins materials, usually metals or thermoplastics, by causing fusion, which is distinct from lower temperature metal-joining techniques such as brazing and soldering, which do not melt the base metal."
https://en.wikipe.../Welding

what you're referring to is: Arc welding (very popular, but not the original source nor use of the word)

people were welding long before anything about electricity was ever known, using heat only

learn to do some basic research, ya moron

Oct 15, 2016
@cantread cont'd
An arc discharge could easilly explain the 3100degF observed temperatures
it could also explain all the observed light which we see regularly blinding us when we observe the moon...

oh wait! there has never been an observed "arc discharge" of power equivalent to do the level of damage you need to get the results you claim is being done!

oh well... i guess it's back to learning about what is more probable: things like meteor/physical strikes making craters (observed, measured, verified, validated)
OR
plasma discharge (never observed, never measured, never verified or validated, with absolutely NO known source of sufficient power to create the physical damage seen,)

no brainer - but i already know what you cult members will choose, despite the actual observed evidence and the fact that such a discharge would also leave a LOT of physical evidence behind that we also never observe or measure

LMFAO

Oct 15, 2016
The thing is, in the last paper I linked, the spacecraft flew over the same feature for three days straight: "Pillan showed constant thermal output within error over three days of observations."
How is a lava lake retaining its high temperature against the vacuum of space over three days? Only by constant input from volcanism.
It's a totally silly 'hypothesis'. However, it's not the first that Thornhill has dreamed up, and I doubt it will be the last.

Oct 15, 2016
"McEwen et al (1998b) reported brightness temperatures of 1500–1800 K, and Davies et al. (2001) quoted a temperature of 1870 K during the 1997 eruption at Pillan. Later work by Keszthelyi et al. (2007) suggested that these temperatures should be lowered by ~260 K, placing the temperatures within the basaltic regime."

When the data doesn't match theory, change the data....

Oct 15, 2016
When the data doesn't match theory, change the data....


No, when it seems they used the wrong model, then reassess the data. The paper is freely available:
http://s3.amazona...atur.pdf

In addition, the later data in the other paper I linked agree with the revised data. Much lower temperatures at the same location. And how are you sustaining these temperatures over days?

Bit of a cheek when Wal's idea of a hypothesis is "ooh look, that temperature looks high, it must be electric woo." Care to explain how he suddenly makes the jump from high looking temperature to electric woo? With no observation and no mechanism? You find that scientific and convincing, do you? It's laughable, is what it is.

Oct 15, 2016
Not without an explanation where all that spark power comes from.


Thornhill's imagination.

Oct 15, 2016
Not without an explanation where all that spark power comes from.

http://voyager.jp...ere.html
"An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted."

Ignorance is no excuse.

Oct 15, 2016
Not without an explanation where all that spark power comes from.


Thornhill's imagination.

@jonesdave
LMFAO

maybe it's the cumulative power of the belief of the cult?
that is, after all, how religions work, right?

if everyone believes it, then it's true
and when it goes wrong, it's because someone didn't believe hard enough

which sounds exactly like the arguments from the eu cult above

we don't "believe" hard enough or as thoroughly as they do, so that's why we can't see!

LOL

see? he even demonstrated it for us!
"An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted."
WOW
it's a compulsion on their part, isn't it?
defend against the heretics!

next, the electric inquisition!
ROTFLMFAO

Oct 15, 2016
Not without an explanation where all that spark power comes from.

http://voyager.jp...ere.html
"An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted."

Ignorance is no excuse.


And nor is ignorance of basic science. How are you getting this current to cause volcanism? Without being observed? Is it permanently melting the surface in various locations at once? What could a craft passing between the 'current' and the volcano (as has happened) expect to experience? What would IR data reveal? What about other wavelengths?
Sorry, just more scientifically illiterate rambling from the idiot Thornhill, as he attempts to justify his Velikovskian woo. Why do you think nobody who is remotely scientifically literate takes him seriously? I suppose it's all some giant conspiracy, eh? The alternative is that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

Oct 15, 2016
http://voyager.jp...ere.html
"An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted."
Ignorance is no excuse.

I agree. So:
How much power does that current carry ?
How much power flows to Phobos and from where ?
Please back up your answers with observations.

"Io can develop 400,000 volts across itself and create an electric current of 3 million amperes. This current takes the path of least resistance along Jupiter's magnetic field lines to the planet's surface, creating lightning in Jupiter's upper atmosphere."
http://solarsyste.../indepth

Of course it can create lightning (electric discharge) on Jupiter, but apparently not on Io...Hmmmm...

Although the distinct evidence of the plasma gun is observed;
http://www.plasma...sler.pdf

There is no evidence, as long as you ignore it.


Oct 15, 2016
There is no evidence, as long as you ignore it.


There is no evidence, full stop. Please show us from the observations where it is? Please show us that the images of volcanoes are faked. Tell us how this non-observed lightning is somehow creating lava lakes that have constant temperature over a number of days. And yet is invisible in IR. Etc, etc.

It is a non-hypothesis. If there really is a hypothesis, then, as I've said, show it to us. The level of work I'd expect to see for a hypothesis of this type should be similar to the detail in this:
http://onlinelibr...928/full
where it would seem the power flows FROM Io TO Jupiter.

If you think Thornhill is capable of such work, then you really are deluded.

Oct 15, 2016
And, of course, we are still left with the mystery of how craters at Mars, Phobos et al are created via these thunderbolts!

Oct 15, 2016
1.2 billion kilowatts or 1200 gigawatts

Oct 15, 2016
It is a non-hypothesis. If there really is a hypothesis, then, as I've said, show it to us. The level of work I'd expect to see for a hypothesis of this type should be similar to the detail in this:
http://onlinelibr...928/full
where it would seem the power flows FROM Io TO Jupiter.


"Bidirectional electron beams aligned with the magnetic field were discovered in the wake of Io during the J0 Galileo flyby in 1995. Williams reported observations of these beams between 15 and 150 keV, using EPD on board Galileo. Frank, using the PLS instrument on board the spacecraft, reported the detection on the same flyby of lower-energy electron beams between 100 eV and 10 keV. combined the lower-energy and high-energy beams measurements to provide a full distribution function and particle flux. Both lower-energy electron beams were also detected above Io's poles and along its flanks during the Galileo flybys of the satellite"

Bidirectional electron beams, but not "electron beams".

Oct 15, 2016
^^^They have been detected in the ionosphere. They are not, from any observations, reaching the lithosphere. Nor do they need to. As mentioned, there is not only no mechanism, nor observation, for Thornhill's nonsense, there is also no need for it. That is the very definition of when to apply the principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor.
Peale et al had already predicted that volcanism was a possibility just before Voyager reached Jupiter. Tidal heating has to happen. It is inevitable. So how does that heat dissipate? How does/did the internal heat at Earth and Mars (due to a different mechanism) dissipate? Via volcanoes, at least in part. What do we see at Io? Volcanoes. Where is the problem that needs invisible lightning bolts to explain anything? The problem lies only within Thornhill's mythology obsessed brain.

Oct 15, 2016
As per the previous;
Melting of Io by Tidal Dissipation
https://www.resea...0000.pdf
Peale, et al
1979

EDIT:
Must be brilliant to write a paper like that, and then see your predictions borne out within months!

Oct 15, 2016
They have been detected in the ionosphere. They are not, from any observations, reaching the lithosphere.

Except for the observed plasma gun plumes...


Oct 15, 2016
They have been detected in the ionosphere. They are not, from any observations, reaching the lithosphere.

Except for the observed plasma gun plumes...



Are you talking about Peratt's *hypothesised* 'plasma gun' paper? If so, point out in that where he says that they are responsible for the volcanism, which he clearly states is due to *tidal* heating.

Oct 15, 2016
It should be noted that the aforementioned paper was from 1988. Unless cd knows different, there have been no observations to back up the hypothesis, nor has Peratt written a follow up.

So we are still in the realms of an unnecessary hypothesis for the volcanism, which still has no mechanism, nor observation.

Oct 15, 2016
To play fair to Peratt, (and cd), the continuation of this post quotes part of a chapter from:
Plumes and their deposits, 2007.
Paul E. Geissler, David B. Goldstein
http://link.sprin...8841-5_8

Paywalled, so I had to be a bit naughty. Take note of the use of the words *possibility*, *appear* and *could*. And in particular, the whole of the last sentence.

[cont......]

Oct 15, 2016
[cont]

The electrical currents that connect Io to Jupiter directly impinge on the plumes
near the sub-Jupiter and anti-Jupiter points. Io is an effective electrical generator,
powered by the magnetic field of Jupiter as it sweeps past the conducting satellite.
Part of Io's conductivity is through its ionosphere, but the conduction of
current into the interior of Io through plumes is an intriguing possibility (Gold, 1979).
Spokes and filaments have been seen in Prometheus that appear similar to plasma-arc
discharges observed in the laboratory (Peratt and Dessler, 1988), although they could
instead result from multiple sources along the lava flow. Powerful currents could
produce interesting disequilibrium chemical reactions within the plumes and possibly
heat the surface of the satellite near the plume sources. These effects would be local,
however, as the power generated globally by electrical induction is two orders of
magnitude less than that derived from tidal heating.

Oct 15, 2016
It should also be noted, as it was by Peratt, the the plumes have to be pre-existing for this putative effect to occur.
Which still leaves us with zero mechanism for Thornhill's thunderbolts. As expected.

Oct 15, 2016
Part of Io's conductivity is through its ionosphere, but the conduction of
current into the interior of Io through plumes is an intriguing possibility (Gold, 1979). Spokes and filaments have been seen in Prometheus that appear similar to plasma-arc discharges observed in the laboratory (Peratt and Dessler, 1988), although they could instead result from multiple sources along the lava flow. Powerful currents could produce interesting disequilibrium chemical reactions within the plumes and possibly heat the surface of the satellite near the plume sources.

Those are plasma arc discharges, not impossible (according to jonesdumb) "plasma arc discharges"...


Oct 15, 2016
^^^^What are you talking about now??????? They say that Peratt says that they "look like" plasma arc discharges. Not that they are. Not that they've been detected. It is merely mentioned at the end of the chapter, as 'an intriguing possibility'! Which are fully dependent, if they exist at all, on a volcanic plume being present in the first place. They don't just happen. As noted by Peratt. And could also be from multiple sources along the lava flow.

Oct 15, 2016
What are you talking about now?

According to you, the "intriguing possibility" of plasma arc discharges is impossible. You've made such a claim ad nauseum.
They don't just happen.

I know, because I find little volcanoes everywhere lightning strikes the Earth, and trees, and on my doorknob, and on Tesla coils. Before you know it they'll also find volcanoes in clouds too, because arc discharge "don't just happen"...

Oct 15, 2016
What are you talking about now?

According to you, the "intriguing possibility" of plasma arc discharges is impossible. You've made such a claim ad nauseum.
They don't just happen.

I know, because I find little volcanoes everywhere lightning strikes the Earth, and trees, and on my doorknob, and on Tesla coils. Before you know it they'll also find volcanoes in clouds too, because arc discharge "don't just happen"...


Read it again. And then come back once you've realised that this is NOT a potential mechanism for Thornhill's rubbish. Nor is Peratt saying it is. And that the plumes are necessary for this putative, unobserved discharging. In other words - no volcanoes, no putative, hypothetical, far too weak discharges.
And then tell us what Thornhill's thunderbolt mechanism is, which even denies the existence of volcanoes. How is he keeping the high temperatures for many days? And how does it cause craters on Mars and Phobos?

Oct 15, 2016
This relevant part of Peratt's abstract should make it bleeding obvious to even the most evangelical of Thornhill's gullible acolytes:

"However, *once a volcano is initiated by tidal and geologic processes*, the dynamics of the volcanic plumes can be influenced by the plasma arcs."

Along with the last sentence of what I already thought was bleeding obvious from the tract I posted earlier:

"These effects would be local, however, as the *power generated globally by electrical induction is two orders of magnitude less than that derived from tidal heating.*"


Oct 15, 2016
Lest we not forget that "tidal heating" is in itself a hypothetical proposition. Contrary to your preaching to the otherwise.

Oct 15, 2016
Lest we not forget that "tidal heating" is in itself a hypothetical proposition. Contrary to your preaching to the otherwise.


No, it isn't. Ever played squash?

Oct 15, 2016
No, it isn't. Ever played squash?

You'll have to expand upon your comment, I'm having a hard time reconciling such an asinine comment. Are you suggesting that because friction is a real phenomenon, that it is proof of "tidal heating" by gravity.

Oct 15, 2016
Squeeze a squash ball and it will heat up. It is one of the easier demonstrations of how tidal heating happens. If you actually want to try the equation you can find it here:
https://en.wikipe..._heating

If you want a visual description (highly exaggerated) there is one here:
http://www.nao.ac...ise.html

There is nothing hypothetical about it. It HAS to happen. Physics, and all that stuff. I'd love to know who is saying it is only 'hypothetical'. As if I can't guess.

Oct 16, 2016
There is nothing hypothetical about it. It HAS to happen. Physics, and all that stuff.

Please show where gravitational kneading is supported by experiment. Not just theoretical conjecture,but actual experiment.

Oct 16, 2016
@cantdrive85
"Ignorance is no excuse."

jonesdave and Captain Stumpy are "all mouth and no trousers" it seems.

Oct 16, 2016
There is nothing hypothetical about it. It HAS to happen. Physics, and all that stuff.

Please show where gravitational kneading is supported by experiment. Not just theoretical conjecture,but actual experiment.


I told you squeeze a squash ball. Same thing. The Earth is deformed by the moon. Measured. Where do you think that energy goes? Sound? Have you heard it? No? Then where else do you think it is going? Would you like us to put a planet in a lab? Idiot. How do you think Peale was able to predict that Io may be volcanic? Made it up like Thornhill? Why do you think Peratt accepts tidal heating as the mechanism? Who do you think is right; Peale, Peratt, thousands of other scientists, or you and the idiot Thornhill? It is BASIC physics. Haven't you ever studied Planetatry Science?

Oct 16, 2016
@cantdrive85
"Ignorance is no excuse."

jonesdave and Captain Stumpy are "all mouth and no trousers" it seems.


Yep, from the bloke who thinks that the Sun is invisible. LMAO. And we are the only ones actually linking to real science.

Oct 16, 2016
There is nothing hypothetical about it. It HAS to happen. Physics, and all that stuff.

Please show where gravitational kneading is supported by experiment. Not just theoretical conjecture,but actual experiment.


I told you squeeze a squash ball. Same thing. The Earth is deformed by the moon. Measured. Where do you think that energy goes? Sound? Have you heard it? No? Then where else do you think it is going? Would you like us to put a planet in a lab? Idiot. How do you think Peale was able to predict that Io may be volcanic? Made it up like Thornhill? Why do you think Peratt accepts tidal heating as the mechanism? Who do you think is right; Peale, Peratt, thousands of other scientists, or you and the idiot Thornhill? It is BASIC physics. Haven't you ever studied Planetatry Science?

Paper please, because it's not real without the paper. Experimental support. And not squishing your balls with your hand, experimental support of gravitational kneading.

Oct 16, 2016
What sort of 'experimental' support would you like? Support for the basic laws of physics? Loads of it out there. Go look it up. You want experimental support that gravity actually deforms a body? It has to be allowed for in GPS. On the moon? http://scitechdai...on-moon/
I'll ask again; do you think a planet would fit in a laboratory? Think about it. Even for EU supporters, that shouldn't be hard. What do you think happens when a body is continually compressed? Where does that energy go? VERY BASIC PHYSICS. Understood for a very long time. Able to predict the volcanism at Io. Where do you think it is going?
If you think it is wrong, you would be overturning the basic laws of physics. Who is suggesting such a thing, and where are their claims?
Oh, and we still haven't got a mechanism for Wal's Velikovskian bollocks, yet.

Oct 16, 2016
https://en.wikipe..._heating
and references therein.

The only references therein discuss hypothetical phenomena.

Oct 16, 2016
https://en.wikipe..._heating
and references therein.

The only references therein discuss hypothetical phenomena.

Oct 16, 2016
https://en.wikipe..._heating
and references therein.

The only references therein discuss hypothetical phenomena.


So, I'll ask the question again; according to very basic laws of physics, what do you think is happening when gravity deforms a body? As measured at Earth, the moon and Io (~ 100m!). How is the energy imparted to these bodies being expressed? Clue: go get a squash ball.

Oct 16, 2016
I'll ask again; do you think a planet would fit in a laboratory?

So, there is no experimental support for gravitational kneading. Just maths right?

On the moon? http://scitechdai...on-moon/

You're assuming that it is gravity doing the deforming without any experimental support to back it up.

Oct 16, 2016
No, I'm not assuming it. The whole body of science, and those who are scientifically literate are 'assuming' and measuring it. They are using it to make predictions. They are seeing those predictions borne out.
What do YOU think it is down to? The bloody tooth fairy? When you go to the beach and see the water gradually getting closer, or further away, what do YOU put it down to? God? Electric woo? Please show me an alternative to G that is tested to the same degree, matches predictions and is scientifically sensible. I am unaware of any such thing.

Oct 16, 2016
Dark matter... You're missing 96% of your gravity only Universe. That's scientific sensibility.

Oct 16, 2016
^^^^Give it a rest. You came on this thread posting unscientific crap about electric craters. You have no mechanism. You have no observation. Despite repeated requests. You question the tidal heating mechanism, which has been shown to be true. You have no alternative, and can't point us to one.
Now you want to divert from your unscientific quasi-religious crap by diverting yet again into dark matter! Sad. Dark matter is not needed for the tidal heating effect. Just G and a tidally locked body in an elliptical orbit.
Either explain this Velikovskian crap of Thornhill's, or just admit that he doesn't have a mechanism. That it's just a belief system. And then we can all go home.

Oct 16, 2016
Where is the experimental support of your claims, "which has been shown to be true"?
There is boat loads of experimental support for electric discharge, including the erosion and deposits caused by it. There is also a multi-billion watt electric current that flows through Io that in your mind does nothing of any significance, contrary to a couple hundred years of scientific evidence.

Oct 16, 2016
Where is the experimental support of your claims.......etc


Regards Io, it is a hypothesis that this induced current is doing anything at all. Nothing has been observed. Either in my mind, or observationally. It is overwhelmed by the gravity induced tidal heating of the body. As noted by Peratt (or is he wrong?).
There are all sorts of things you can do with electricity on a small scale. So write them up as to how (maybe) they are acting on a large scale. You know, equations, numbers, predictions, how they would be initiated, detected, etc, etc.
A bit like Peale; "here is the equation for tidal heating; here are the orbital parameters; here is G; here is an assumption of Io's internal composition, etc; here is what I think is possible."
That is science.
What Thornhill is doing isn't even close:
"Velikovsky was a genius. I need thunderbolts from somewhere. Let's have them blast mountains off of planets to form comets. Let's have them making craters. Yay. All done."

Oct 17, 2016
jonesdave and Captain Stumpy are "all mouth and no trousers" it seems
@solon-g to logic the eu TROLL
sorry, i'm straight: find your romance elsewhere

Paper please, because it's not real without the paper
cantreadTROLL
illiteracy is your problem
There is boat loads of experimental support for electric discharge
and this is one reason we can categorically discount that electric discharges made craters/etc on the moon and grand canyon... because there would be evidence even still today that demonstrated this and there would have been and should still be measured, observed discharges considering the power required for the damage displayed

and this is the reason you always fail: just because you want to believe in something doesn't mean it's true

there is no evidence to support your claims while the evidence demonstrates you're a pseudoscience crankpot

PS - if you wont read the studies you won't learn the science
that's all on you

Oct 17, 2016
It seems as if Cap'n Stoopid has something to say.
Captain Stumpy5 / 5 (1) 1 hour ago
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Same stoopid thing, as usual.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more