The lunar surface has been mapped and it's crust and mantle are solid and rigid with no liquid beneath the surface.
To me this is another piece of evidence that suggests there is no water inside Europa and therefore the moons are growing: Most Detailed Lunar Map Suggests Little Water Inside Moon.
In part, the new map will serve as a guide for future lunar rovers, which will scour the surface for geological resources.
But Araki and his colleagues did something more with the map: they measured the roughness of the lunar surface, and used that information to calculate the stiffness of the crust.
If water flowed beneath the lunar surface, the crust would be somewhat flexible, but it wasn't. The surface was too rigid to allow for any liquid water, even deep within the Moon.
Earth's surface is more flexible, by contrast, with the surface rising or falling as water flows above or below ground. Even our planet's [alleged] plate tectonics is due in part to water lubricating the crust.
And Mars? On a scale of surface roughness, it falls somewhere between the Earth and the Moon, which indicates that there may have once been liquid water, but that the surface is now very dry.
No surprise there.
But Mars' roughness coupled with the complete absence of plate tectonics suggests that if there is water in the red planet's interior, it is not located near the surface, where it could lubricate the crust, Shum explained.
The LALT map is the most detailed lunar map ever created.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
20 comments:
@OIM "To me this is another piece of evidence that suggests there is no water inside Europa..."
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_phillips_europa_040226.html
.
.
.
Data from Galileo's magnetometer (an instrument which measures the strength and direction of magnetic fields) showed that Europa has an induced magnetic field that varies in direction and strength in response to Europa's position within Jupiter's strong magnetic field. The periodic variation in direction shows that the field is not due to a permanent internal dipole, meaning that the field is not created in the interior of Europa (unlike the Earth's magnetic field).
The strength and response of the induced field at Europa can tell us about subsurface structure. The results measured by the Galileo magnetometer require a near-surface, global conducting layer. The most likely layer that meets these requirements is a global layer of salty water, with a salt content of no less than ~0.02 times the salinity of Earths oceans. The magnetometer results allow a range of solutions with different values for the conductivity of the ocean, the depth below the surface at which it is located, and the ocean layers thickness. For example, if we assume a Europan ocean with a conductivity equal to that of the terrestrial oceans, then such a layer would have to be at least several kilometers thick and located no farther than 200 km below the surface of Europa.
.
.
.
Tom,
No water has been observed on Europa. Ever.
And unfortunately science is based upon observation.
The scientific method requires it.
"Data from Galileo's magnetometer (an instrument which measures the strength and direction of magnetic fields) showed that Europa has an induced magnetic field that varies in direction and strength in response to Europa's position within Jupiter's strong magnetic field."
I had no idea magnetism and not gravity is responsible for tidal forces. Thx for the headsup! Great article.
I had no idea magnetism and not gravity is responsible for tidal forces. Thx for the headsup! Great article.
At what point did the quoted article even vaguely suggest that tidal forces are caused by magnetism?
And, since you brought it up, the probe is observation, the data is an implication, and the results are the best fit for the data, if the results didn't fit the data, you'd have different results.
Jeffery,
What does magnetism have to do with water on Europa?
Do you think that salt water is required to produce a magnetic field?
There you go again. Read it again.
The most likely layer that meets these requirements is a global layer of salty water, with a salt content of no less than ~0.02 times the salinity of Earths oceans. The magnetometer results allow a range of solutions with different values for the conductivity of the ocean, the depth below the surface at which it is located, and the ocean layers thickness.
Those results are speculative at best.
"These results, while intriguing, will not be confirmed until a direct detection of Europas ocean is made."
Direct detection i.e. observation.
NASA calls your occult magical art by it's proper name: alchemical divining.
Can I borrow your divining rod?
You are quite the piece of work, OiM.
Sometimes, I do not have a response to you. And for that, I'm very sorry.
Divining? Dousing? Remote Viewing? Next you'll be telling me that Venus is a comet spat out by Saturn.
Venus was a comet.
Know your history.
"As Zeus's daughter she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.
"Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars have been seen when comets dissolve." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.
@OIM "Those results are speculative at best."
I find it interesting that a proponent of the Electric Universe rejects information obtained from a space probe equipped with instruments whose sole purpose is to study the Electric Universe.
"These results, while intriguing, will not be confirmed until a direct detection of Europas ocean is made."
Yes, and that is what NASA intends to do - to follow-up the observation with new space probes that will either confirm or reject the initial finding. Perhaps a seismic sounder on a future Europa lander will resolve the issue one way or the other.
@Jeffery Keown "At what point did the quoted article even vaguely suggest that tidal forces are caused by magnetism?"
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
OIM can't answer you because he pulled that comment from his posterior.
Tom, I'm surprised to see you actually believe electromagnetism is at work in the universe.
@OIM "Tom, you believe electromagnetism is at work in the universe?"
Yes, I can see the sun, the moon, and the stars. What do you think light is if not an EM wave? Of course, EM is at work in the universe. It is obvious.
But I haven't seen two many electric arcs connecting Mars and Venus. At least not lately. So I am not willing to believe in any hair-brained EM hypothesis where there is no evidence.
Sorry about the edit there.
Well there is evidence of the circuit. Venus's plasma tail has been observed.
Plasma travels along magnetic field lines.
@OIM "Tom, I'm surprised to see you actually believe electromagnetism is at work in the universe."
Why wouldn't it be? It's one of the four known forces of nature.
From what I understand it is particularly active on a certain island where a plane crashed in 2004 (as portrayed on ABC's Lost). :)
@ OilIsMastery:
I read your history link, a Wikipedia entry for Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa.
Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry does it use the word comet to describe Venus. Rather, it is simply a calendar of the various movements of Venus, principally settings and risings on the horizon. The Venus tablets actually testify to the stability of Venus's orbit because as the tablets testify, Venus has a predictable pattern of rising and setting.
I can only draw the conclusion that you are basing your contention that Venus was a comet on Velikovsky.
Am I correct?
The Venus tablets are in cuneiform. Velikovsky interpreted these cuneifirm tablets to mean that Venus was a comet. But Velikovsky's interpretation has been criticized and demonstratedly rebutted. See, Abraham Sachs' address, where a recognized expert in cuneiform analysis dismantled Velikovsky's interpretation.
OilIsMastery, I presented this information for your consideration before in a comment to another post, but you declined to address this criticism even after I invited you to respond.
But more important, and I neglected to mention in follow up comments in that post that Velikovsky, himself, never rebutted Abraham Sachs' analysis.
Why is that important?
Because Velikovsky prided himself on rebutting interlocutors who challenged his thesis.
And Velikovsky has ample opportunity to do so.
Of all the rebuttles Velikovsky made in response to his critics, why is it that he never rebutted Abraham Sachs?
Could it be Velikovsky had no effective rebuttal to make in response to Sachs?
Now, all that said, is it possible that the planet Venus, not a comet Venus, was experiencing increased electromagnetic energy from the Sun which caused it's magnetotail to light up?
Venus is known to have what is called an induced magnetotail, per Wikipedia: "Venus lacks a magnetic field. Its ionosphere separates the atmosphere from outer space and the solar wind. This ionized layer excludes the solar magnetic field, giving Venus a distinct magnetic environment. This is considered Venus' induced magnetosphere. Lighter gases including water are continuously blown away by the solar wind through the induced magnetotail."
Should this magnetotail have an increase of electromagnetic energy supplied to it by the Sun, it could appear as a comet-like tail.
This increased energy could also cause it to be longer and possibly interact with Earth's magnetosphere which could cause unknown, but spectacular and possibly disrupting electromagnetic disturbances in Earth's atmosphere.
This result would likely cause early Man to want to track Venus and be able to predict when these "disruptions" would occur.
Those that could predict when these Venus "disruptions" would occur would have much power in a given society or civilization.
So, in conclusion, Venus doesn't have to be disgorged recently (by astrophysical standards) by a planet, or be swirling or careening wildly about the solar system to have a "comet-like" appearance and disruptive effects that Man would want to track and predict.
SCIENTISTS PROPOSE PLANETARY ORBITAL MIGRATIONS
The Unverse Today post, Jupiter, Saturn Plowed Through Asteroids, Study Says, February 25, 2009 makes note that astronomers think Saturn and Jupiter experienced orbital "migrations".
A quote from the post: "Qualitatively, it looks as if a snow plough were driven through the main asteroid belt, kicking out asteroids along the way and slowing to a stop at the inner edge of the belt."
And further: "When planets migrated, astronomers believe objects in resonance with them also shifted, affecting different parts of the asteroid belt at different times."
Although, the lead sentence to the post states: ""When Mars and Jupiter migrated to their present orbits around 4 billion years ago…"
But what basis do scientists have for the timing of the planets' "migrations"?
I am very interested to know what that scientific evidence is for the conclusion that the "migrations" happened 4 billion years ago.
Could it be that the "migrations" didn't happen 4 billion years ago, but at some other time?
And what possible dynamics would be generated by those planetary migrations.
Is it possible that those planetary migrations would effect the electromagnetic equilibrium of the interplanetary medium which science knows is of a electromagnetic nature being made up of plasma (the solar wind)?
Could it be possible electrical discharges were released as a result of this electromagnetic disequilibrium?
And what possoble scientific evidence could there be as a result of these hypothesized electrical discharges?
Electric Universe theory would suggest craters on the moon are evidence of electric discharge events. We can see the "craters" on the picture of this post.
But what if the craters are not a result of "impacts", but of electrical discharge?
There is scientific evidence of electrical discharge created "impact" craters.
Tom Marking challenged me:
"Anaconda, you have proposed electrical arcs in the form of Birkeland currents stretching from planet to planet within our own solar system. Wouldn't it be better to actually show evidence for such filamentary currents in our own solar system before extending the theory to galaxies, quasars, etc.? What evidence is there that a Birkeland current has ever connected Earth to Mars, Mars to Jupiter, etc., etc.?"
These "impact" craters on Mercury, Mars, and the Moon are evidence of electrical discharges between the planets and moons. We know there is electrical arcs between Io and Jupiter, which cause "craters", once thought to be volcanic, but now known to be the result of these electrical arcs.
The mechanism that would cause the electromagnetic disequilibrium is the "migration" of the planets.
Now, before readers go, "aha," I knew that blasted Anaconda was a Velikovskian in sheeps' clothing, let me say straight off, that I don't agree with Velikovsky's timing at all. These "thunderbolts" would wipe-out most of the inhabitants of any "world" subjected to a steady dose of electrical discharge events.
So, it is very unlikely this happened anytime recently.
But remember mainstream scientists are the ones that are saying planets experienced orbital migration.
But by astrophysical standards a billion years ago, instead of 4 billion years ago would be a big deal.
The key, here, to remember is that science doesn't know when these electrical discharge events happened anymore than science knows when the planets migrated.
But planets experiencing orbital migration would act like a comet in terms of a change of their electrical potential and considering the size of the planets involved compared to comets, the electrical discharges could be quite large.
Anaconda,
"Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry does it use the word comet to describe Venus."
It doesn't need to because it's obvious just by looking at the data.
"Rather, it is simply a calendar of the various movements of Venus, principally settings and risings on the horizon."
Exactly.
"The Venus tablets actually testify to the stability of Venus's orbit because as the tablets testify, Venus has a predictable pattern of rising and setting."
Really? 'On the 11th of Sivan, Venus disappeared in the west, remaining absent from the sky for 9 months and 4 days, and on the 15th of Adar she was seen in the east' while the next year 'on the 10th of Arahsamna, Venus disappeared in the east, remaining absent 2 months and 6 days in the sky, and was seen on 16th of Tebit in the west.'
In what way is that stable? Where I'm from that's called irregular.
@Anaconda "These "impact" craters on Mercury, Mars, and the Moon are evidence of electrical discharges between the planets and moons. We know there is electrical arcs between Io and Jupiter, which cause "craters", once thought to be volcanic, but now known to be the result of these electrical arcs."
O.K. Where is the evidence that craters on Io were caused by electrical arcing? You are aware of the fact that electrical arcs form the best on a surface with a low radius of curvature - that's why lightning rods are long, thin cylinders rather than flat plates.
If craters are caused by electrical arcs then we would predict the following. There should be more craters in places where the radius of curvature is small - i.e., mountain peaks and other abrupt changes in terrain relief. Do we actually see this on the moon? No, craters appear most everywhere even on the smooth flat mare surfaces which is consistent with the meteor impact theory which says they have an equal chance of occurring everywhere on the surface.
Post a Comment