Possible further evidence of surface water erosion on Moon

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Dubdrifter, Jan 31, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    You are the broken record on this thread, literally “looks like water made it to me” is the entirety of your proof. On the other hand you are being refuted by actual science, math, physics and you just keep worshipping your mythical ooze. Your last post to me has you arguing about my experiment with a vacuum chamber somehow in your opinion not duplicating a vacuum. You do understand what a vacuum chamber is and for what purpose it was created right? You need to come back with real questions or real data and not just flail around at those who disagree with Ivan Ooze’s self declared successor.
  2. Scepticalscribe, Oct 9, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018

    Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Good grief.

    Your post suggests that I am "a shill" for Tigg?


    Rather, I applaud his sensible, interesting and patient responses to the utterly deluded tosh you persist in posting. And I learn stuff from reading his posts, which is always welcome.

    However, over the course of a number of threads, I will remark on the fact that a few features remain constant in your posts.

    The first is the delusional nonsense you post, masquerading as science, when it is nothing of the sort.

    The second is your adamantine refusal and reluctance to alter your stance one whit in the face of reasoned and thoughtful scientific argument which tends to refute your initial thesis. My impression is that your posts and threads are not seeking scientific discussion or debate, but rather affirmation for your position.

    And thirdly, and not for the first time, there is your tendency of seeking to insult those who refuse to subscribe to your delusional posts, theories and threads.
  3. AngerDanger macrumors 68040


    Dec 9, 2008
    Oh, if irony were toxic, I'd have just gotten a lethal dose…
  4. Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    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’.

    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.
    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.
    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 :D..... [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. :confused:]

    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:

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    ...... to fill in the gaps around rille creation, which still strangely exist despite having visited Hadley Rille.
    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).
  5. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    You have NEVER SHOWN A SCIENTIST SAYING IT WAS WATER. Stop acting like we are ignoring the science you are posting, you post about magnetic fields (doesn't help your ooze theory), gravity increases (doesnt help your ooze theory), you need an atmosphere, thats why I wrote the long article what an atmosphere was and how much atmosphere you need, at least 1% of Earths so that liquid water can even exist on the moon for a narrow 0-7 degrees of temperature. I explained how anyone with a vacuum chamber can show that even on earth with its high gravity compared to the moon and its high gravity magnetic field compared to the moon, even at 3% pressure I can get water to boil at room temperature. For all my trouble getting you to understand that concept, you literally implied a vacuum chamber isn't a good simulator of a vacuum. As for your residue complaint, again, its the sand problem as I said earlier (which you apparently don't understand) or what is probably easier to understand an ice problem. A lake is a sheet of ice during the winter, you throw a bucket of water on the lake, in the morning it will be hard if not impossible to figure out where that water was thrown, in 2 or three days it will be impossible. That is where your melted basalt (lava) disappeared to on your hardened basalt (the Mare).

    Show us someone saying its water flowing on the moon, except for you, you can't because for all your "science" postings, none of them say what you want them to say.

    It had twice the pressure in its atmosphere over 3 billion years ago as Mars has now. That means water would melt at 0 degrees and then turn to vapor a few degrees later its not going to flow for 100+ miles as it needs to do to create these huge Rilles. When Mars had lots of flowing water billion+ years ago, it had a much bigger atmosphere then it has now, maybe even more pressure then Earth's current atmosphere.

    I literally showed you an article that showed you that it is in fact INCREDIBLY difficult to see the difference between the two from NASA. The Flows in Hawaii are 100% known to be made by a Volcano but show all the signs you think make it created by water. Water has not been able to flow at all on the moon for 3 Billion years, anything created by flowing liquid in the last 3 billion years no matter how small, it created by Lava. Over 3 Billion years ago before the atmosphere was lost, water could only exist for a few degrees, so there is no way for flowing water to create something significant in the time it takes to go from 0 to 7 degrees.

    We don't understand the order of the group of volcanic and meteoric forces that created an area on the moon, does not mean we think water did it despite what you keep implying. Noone but you says its water.

    Literally you can't even quote me right. We have samples from 6 different locations on the moon, the six landing sites, on the first three there wasn't even a rover so all the samples are from very close, even with the rover the astronauts were never more then 5 miles or so away from the landing site, given those parameters, its remarkable how varied the rocks we have are, but most of the moon is old, a lack of new rocks was part of the reason Apollo 17 was sent to Hadley. Water didnt flow on the moon for any length of time for any part of its history, it probably never flowed at all, that weak of an atmosphere wasn't alot of protection for water from the solar winds, and moon warms up really quick so even if water was liquid, its turned to water vapor pretty quick.

    Actually I find the main problem on earth is people are stupid and would rather believe a meme on facebook, then facts in a science book. See also resurgence of Measles, smallpox and whooping cough. As to your comment, for all my whines about them SpaceX, Blue Horizon and Virgin are pushing us forward quicker then we have gone in years and thats 3 billionaires spending alot of money they may never make back.

    There is no evidence at all that the Moon has had an atmosphere for the last 3 billion years, an open mind means you look at new data and adjust your theory or come up with a new one based on the new data (Take note IPCC thats what you are supposed to be doing), it doesnt mean with no data to support your theory that you decide that the moon had an atmosphere way after it lost it.

    Stop saying shift the Triple point, that is not a thing. The Atmosphere disappeared 3 billion years ago, what the article you were showing said that a magnetic field "two orders of magnitude" less started 2 billion years ago or so. First of all as I pointed out that 1% of what it previously was, and secondly a magnetic field does not create an atmosphere, and to create a 1% atmosphere that allows liquid water you need an eruption to kick 8,642,350,000,000,000 lbs of stuff into the atmosphere of the moon and it all stays up. Otherwise not enough atmosphere for liquid water.

    You are glossing over the fact the reduced Magnetic field is 1% of the previous magnetic field. Thats a huge issue, and that there is no evidence at all that the atmosphere of the moon survived the primary loss of the magnetic field over 3 billion years ago. Deciding that despite all the evidence that it lost the atmosphere when it lost its magnetic field, that it didnt and instead when a teeny tiny one showed up 500 million or more years later it protected the atmosphere and that atmosphere somehow became so thick that you could have running water (which you still can't explain how it would work) to create Rille's is just fiction.

    First of all I am not sure MARE is going to happen, they want it to happen because the theory is that the Plateau may be one of the oldest parts of the moon, and so may have some really interesting things to teach us about the early moon, they aren't going there because of your water theory.

    Do you remember before message 96 when user 400, brought up pressure? I told you then water wasn't flowing because of solar winds and temperature. It gets really hot when the sun is out, really cold when its not and that prevents flowing water. Think about it, water starts to flow, and then boils away long before it reaches 100 km. Literally without the pressure issue, the pressure issue just makes it easier to understand it can't and couldnt have happened.

    Again you haven't come up with a way for the moon with no atmosphere can get an atmosphere, thats ok, the math pretty much tells all of us that doesn't happen on rocky planet or moon. Mars had an atmosphere, lost its magnetic field 3 billion years ago or so, and now has virtually no atmosphere, the moon had a little atmosphere, it lost its magnetic field, it went away. In a billion year or so, we will lose our magnetic field and our atmosphere will start peeling away, thats just how it works.

    Water flowed and existed prominently on Mars about 3 Billion years ago when the atmosphere was probably thicker then Earths' now (16 PSI according to a fairly good theory), then the Magnetic Field went away and the solar winds have been stripping it away ever since, so now it has very weak atmosphere and liquid water only exists in the lowlands for short periods of time.

    They only exist for you my friend, everyone else realizes they are volcanic.

    Again condensation doesnt happen on the moon, because there is not enough pressure, NO LIQUID WATER. Also it is hilarous that you now have decided that lava tubes (which are created by lava and volcanoes) are the source of the water that is making your ooze theory happen.

    I've deleted the rest because once again you've gone back to what I now call dubdrifter mode with your pictures. You look at a picture, and without any training, in depth knowledge of geology, understanding of tectonic and vulcanic forces decide what created something. You decided that with the Rille, got to be water, can't be anything else, and you have ran with that for months now. You literally are now saying that you can tell from a picture that the moon used to spin faster and believe that the infamous crater we call the Cat is where the Earth and Moon rubbed together. I've done that math a bunch of times, moon breaks up and destroys the earth long before they rub each other. Cat is a huge crater, not a planet rub. Also its real name isn't the Cat, but everyone calls it that because its shorter and you don't have to use an umlaut on an american keyboard.
  6. Scepticalscribe, Oct 11, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018

    Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    At the risk of sounding like the "shill" I have been accused of being, again, may I remark on what an excellent and exceptionally well argued post this is.

    I am at a loss to see why the OP is manifestly unable to accept scientific arguments (and refutations) that do not accord with the thesis he so clearly cherishes and passionately clings to in the face of reasoned argument which demolishes the nonsense he persists in posting.

    It is one thing to post an erroneous theory, and then to be able to accept that it may be mistaken when somebody else takes the time and trouble to patiently point this out and to further explain, not only why it is misconceived, and mistaken, but also, much more importantly, why, with the current conditions in place, this means that it could never have happened that way in the first instance. Never. Not in the conditions that prevail and did prevail in our solar system.

    However, it is quite another to still cling to one's cherished delusions long after the premise on which they are based have been demolished and refuted.
  7. 400 macrumors 6502

    Sep 12, 2015
  8. Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    It’s very frustrating .... I make an observation on a series of pictures and present a great deal of up-to-date scientific data and good reasoning why this erosion scenario HISTORICALLY could be created by water ..... I put together this logical argument to HISTORICALLY shift Triple Point stats ..... in the same way they have HISTORICALLY been shifted on Mars ..... and ask you, just for fun, to add all these small incremental changes together mathematically to move Triple Point HISTORICALLY to create a similar water flow erosion scenario on the Moon as we see on Mars .... and you are saying, basically, none of these changes make a jot of difference? ..... all these factors don’t shift the Moon’s Triple Point significantly, at all, EVER!?

    I find that hard to believe .... because it happened easy enough on Mars .....and there are suspect signs of what looks like low viscosity liquid erosion, unlike lava, on other bodies in the Solar System.

    Why aren’t other scientists looking at this new data and rethinking possibilities on SOME luna rilles being water formed?.... Beats me! There is enough scientific evidence there to at least consider the idea ..... once again ..... because contrary to the impression Tig gives, it was astronomers who have been debating the idea for years, not me.
    Maybe other astronomers can shift Historic Lunar Triple Point Stats using some of the pointers here. ..... because observations suggests there isn’t evidence of a lava vent/ fracture or volcano with RESIDUES at the beginning of every lunar rille. Nearby, YES .... at the source NO ..... which is what makes most of these rilles more likely to be created by Ooze Theory

    Old astronomers, with old ideas and poor eyesight must be looking at these new high resolution pictures of the moon’s surface, then nailing in some appaulingly bad HISTORICAL Lunar Triple Point maths in a desperate bid to badly botch fit lava into 99% of Lunar rille formation.

    Observation is EVERYTHING here, HISTORICAL mathematics THEORY can be bunkum if it doesn’t fit the Observational Evidence.
    ......Why? Because there have been many occassions where astronomers have given a host of excellent mathematical reasons why some scenarios were “Impossible” ..... and one space mission plus a simple OBSERVATION blew all that mathematical theory to dust in the time it took the signal to travel from probe to Earth.
    Hopefully the MARE mission(if it happens) will provide that evidence - when it collects and analyses the young rocks relevant to this argument.

    Although scientists say the Universe and it’s evolution can be explained by mathematical equations alone ..... you can’t beat good old observation to confound them .... Is what we see on the surface here from a distance, just my personal ‘hallucination’? (Tig’s inference on my observation)

    ..... I broached the playful idea there were observable signs, in the lunar mare of a possible series of giant rolling impacts, maybe a later ‘kiss’ or huge impact that could have affected the lunar orbit and it’s proximity to Earth ..... Tig’s maths(multiple times) says it didn’t happen, it was impossible.

    Yet the signs are there something happened and hit the lunar surface, possibly at very low velocity, suggesting possibly a planetary size object ..... what is the nearest most likely candidate? Earth? ..... but Tig’s maths says “NO” .... impossible ( where have we heard that before?Historic calculations saying “No”).

    Let’s riff with this idea ..... because if photos show the moon did collide with the Earth several times in it’s history, at VERY low velocity - it’s an object that’s still in the vicinity, so the most likely candidate - and the Late Bombardment and later lunar impacts could have pushed them briefly closer together) ..... and there are a few signs, despite erosion and water coverage .... of possible Earth impact sites ..... [but maybe not the Gulf of Mexico asteroid event(because of the high concentration of Iridium) ..... then maybe this turbulent period of rille creation .... close proximity creating more lunar atmosphere or an Earth “kiss” even seeing our Earth ‘donating’ atmosphere during lunar history .... could mess with historic lunar Triple Point big time!

    [Dating lunar/earth impact sites might show up some correlations .... size of impact sites might also match to tell us what points hit together and give clues to impact velocity].

    So in summary, apart from calculating a scenario of how many pounds of atmosphere would mathematically be needed to be created by vulcanism to make Moon ooze water flow for a very short period (but not enough to erode rilles, naturally! .... but strangely much more than Mars seems to have needed?) ..... in the words of Reg and the Romans ..... what else has Tig done to shift Triple Point to help Ooze Theory? ..... NOTHING!

    It’s still stuck at 0-7 degrees ..... now ..... and all through Lunar history ...... which must be a first for planetary creation in our Solar System!
  9. Tigger11, Oct 15, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018

    Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    There is no such thing as SHIFTING THE TRIPLE POINT. Its hard to take an argument seriously when you are basically throwing a unicorn into the conversation.

    This is the pressure side of the issue:

    Mars (3 Billion Years ago) 16.00 PSI

    Earth (at Sea Level) 14.67 PSI

    Earth (at 20K Altitude) 6.75 PSI

    Moon (3 Billion Years ago) 0.184 PSI

    1% of Earth Atmosphere 0.147 PSI

    Mars (Now) 0.092 PSI

    Triple Point of Water 0.088 PSI

    Moon (Currently) 0.0000000000145 PSI

    At any Pressure Lower than the Triple Point of Water, water cannot exist as a liquid, doesnt matter what planet, gravity, temperature or Magnetic Field etc, its hard proven 100% science. So yes, water flowed and made great seas on Mars, 3 billion years ago when the Atmospheric pressure was was greater then Earth, and after the Magnetic field started dying down, the atmosphere weakened more and more and the water went away, so now Mars can have little water geysers for a few minutes at a time, because its pressure is getting really close the the Triple point. As you can see the Moon's atmosphere is so below the triple point liquid water can't exist there now. Also you don't understand viscosity and how it effects erosion enough for you to throw that out at this point. I will point out that Basaltic Lava (which created the Mares and Rilles) is the lowest viscosity of all the lavas, and as I have pointed out before has been clocked on the Earth at +40 MPH, on the moon it will be faster.

    No its not Astronomers, its you and only you. Astronomers debate the order of items that created things on the moon all the time. As further evidence comes out from LROC and other sources the theories adjust, what doesn't happen is creation by liquid water because water hasn't been able to exist in liquid form on the moon for over 3 Billion years. So everything newer then that has NEVER SEEN LIQUID WATER.

    Again picking on people who disagree with you using all the real science with your unscientific Ooze theory. Looking at a high resolution picture of a Rille, doesnt mean its made by water, especially when the spectroscope of the same area shows that Rille is lined with Basalt. You are saying they have old ideas, but WATER is the old idea, not lava. Lava is the new theory, the Mares were giant oceans 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago. Its only recently that we realized they were dried lava. The Rille was checked as part of the Apollo mission to verify Water or Lava, Lava won for obvious reasons given the data and samples brought back.

    Give an example of some data from Space thats proven Math wrong. Also, no observation isnt everything, we have pictures, samples, spectroscope and lots of other devices that show its lava, you look at the picture and say its water, and we are supposed to believe you because that what you want it to be?

    MARE not really looking for young rocks, also won't show water, you know why.

    Yes on the Hallucination thing, the Earth and the Moon didnt rub into each other.

    Again as I said before, you look at a picture (in fact a several year old picture) come up with a theory different then any scientist has ever come up with about it, and have decided you are right about it what it is, and everyone else is wrong. As for me running the math on the moon and earth touching, during the runup to 2012, that was money making opportunity, as the crazies were sure of all kinds of crazy astronomical events going to happen. Earth's gravity rips the moon apart as they get really close, its not enough molten core in the moon to hold together and then the pieces make the Extinction Event of 65 million years ago, look like a cake walk compared to what the moon amount of meteors hitting us would do.

    Again, the Earth hits the moon its not going to be low velocity see Gravity for why, nothing hits the earth as low velocity, also why do you think a strike like that is from something larger then the Moon, when all evidence is its something smaller then the moon?

    Now you have multiple collisions of the moon and earth in you scenario, no evidence of that, no explanation how the moon (or for that matter the Earth) survives a collision with an object that large. There is no evidence of a collision because it didnt happen, since the Earth and Moon were created they haven't touched, if they did, there would be debris field where a planet used to be, that is one theory about what may be what happened between Mars and Jupiter. You can't look at a picture of the moon and decide that a number of the craters on it are rubs from the Planet Earth and expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Again the two hit, you and I aren't talking the planet is gone, I'm not sure why we have gone from talking about a single Rille, to now you think the Moon and Earth have been running into each other multiple times and creating "rubs" on the surface of the moon. As I pointed out again above, water ran on Mars, alot over 3 billion years ago, then the magnetic field started dying and the atmosphere started going away and less and less water flowing on Mars. You seem to think that 2X current Mars atmosphere (ie what the Moon had at its best), is someone close to what Mars had when it had seas, and its not, its not even close, I put all the up there in one table for you to hopefully help you out one last time.

    You can't shift the Triple Point, its a hard number, as I explained again for the 3rd or 4th time above. I'm not here to help the ooze theory, I have been trying to help you understand why your theory is wrong, I have been explaining to you with science why your theory is wrong for almost 8 months now. Rille's were created by Vulcanism, I told you that first on Feb 22, I'm still telling you that now, because its the truth.

    Its not stuck at 0-7 degrees now, it can't have liquid water now, long ago over 3 Billion years ago, the atmospheric pressure on the moon would allow liquid water to exist for a few degrees, BUT it doesnt really mean water flowed because its likely that the solar winds would destroy the water as the atmosphere was really thin and probably didnt protect enough for it to even exist to reach 7 degrees, also realize that with water melting at 0 degrees and boiling at 7 degrees with that pressure that alot of the water would evaporate long before it reached boiling, because at low pressure water evaporates more quickly, and as I pointed out before it is not going to take long for the moon to reach 7 degrees after it has already gone past 0 so that ice will melt.
  10. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    As always, an excellent, instructive and informative post.

    I hadn't known that at one point the atmospheric pressure on Mars was actually greater than that on Earth. Fascinating.

    Now: How long before the OP returns with another post, peddling yet again his already endlessly refuted water theories, (and his even dafter Moon crashes into Earth notions), happily insulting those who refuse to accept his theories, and insisting that science drop its inconvenient objections grounded in observation, facts, and data, and simply agree with him and his theories.
  11. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    MAVEN has been providing some really cool infomation that has lead to that conclusion, new Rovers will help us gather even more info about conditions long ago, right now its a 16 +/- 2 PSI number, and that Mars was likely the first Oxygen rich atmosphere, not Earth, so life in our solar system may have started there not here. The recent readings seasonal cycle of Methane being recorded may point to organisms on Mars now, underground which will be amazing as well. Right now however everyone who has ever worked at NASA is mostly hoping Opportunity will call home soon, her 45 days are almost up at which time, her crew will go to listening mode only till January and hoping the Russians figure out what went wrong with Soyuz, the Space Station celebrates 18 years of being manned on Nov 2, it would be bad if we had to temporarily abandon the station because the capsule hits its 200 days and we don't have a solution so it didn't get to celebrate a 19th birthday next year. I also am a little afraid about what the next post of dubdrifter will be about, not sure I would have ever guessed about planet rubs being something he thought happened. Since its almost the ISS's birthday, 3 water facts about the ISS since water is what this thread is all about.

    1) Before the plan to recycle water, NASA estimated that 10,000 lbs of water would be needed per astronaut per year

    2) The recycle system on the ISS operates at about 93%, so though there is quite a bit of water stored on it, it recycles most of what they use.

    3) The estimate is that at 95% efficiency, ISS wouldn't need water for people as the water in the food would provide the remaining needed water.

    All my family survived the storm hitting the Gulf Coast, but the family is down 2 houses now, and no power for 2 months (which sounds crazy) to the only surviving house, so if I am out of pocket for awhile I'll probably be at Mexico Beach.
  12. monokakata macrumors 68000


    May 8, 2008
    Hilo, Hawai'i
    I suggest simply ignoring him. Life's too short, and as I said in an earlier posting, a look at Dub's history shows that he never changes his mind . . . at the end of every thread, he's still spouting the same nonsense.

    If nobody responds, well . . . .

    I frequent a science news site called phys.org, and let me tell you: there are a whole lot of Dub clones over there. But the rules are short postings only (1500 characters max) so as entertainment, it's not tedious.

    But the same kind of doofuses are over there, with their pet theories (either their own, or cribbed from somebody else) and the enduring theme is -- everybody's wrong but me. Scientists don't know a damn thing. There's a guy whose main argument is, "I can solve differential equations and you can't," there's the usual assortment of creationists jumping on every mention of biological evolution, there's the guy for whom "group selection" explains everything, the black-holes-don't-really-exist camp, the "electric universe" camp, and of course tons of folks with their own theories about general relativity (it's wrong, don't you know), quantum gravity . . . .

    I think Mr Dub would do well over there.

    apart from the nutjobs in the comment sections, phys.org is useful.
  13. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Reading your posts, I have learned quite a bit, not only about the moon, but also about Mars. While I knew it once had an atmosphere, I didn't know much about it.

    What are the thoughts - or theories - as to the atmosphere of Mars (and that liquid water)? What made it heavier than Earth's atmospheric pressure? Was the chemical composition of that atmosphere thought to be similar to what envelopes Earth now (and yes, I know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed - in pre Cambrian times, I think the oxygen component was greater still). Does size - mass - matter? - if memory serves, the planet is roughly half the size of Earth.

    And why - or how - did this atmosphere dissipate, or otherwise evaporate? One assumes that such a process took place over a prolonged period of time.

    Re the OP, he has had little credibility with me since his solar flare thread, but - while deploring his delusional posts and threads - I have learned quite a bit from some of those who took the time and trouble to reply to him.
  14. Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    Apologies for delayed reply ..... away on family break for a week.

    With reference to your recent comments .... my Theory would have been destroyed by now if it wasn’t backed up by good scientific research that suggests water may have flowed on the moon during rille creation. Astronomers wouldn’t be wasting there time here if my points were totally flakey.
    [There is good Consiracy Theory ..... backed by good evidence. Bad Conspiracy Theory backed by no/flakey evidence - See the arguments For and Against Conspiracy on 9/11 on Youtube for example]. P.S. The individual has to make up their own mind what is good or bad evidence.

    If you think the scientific evidence I have highlighted is bad in some way, .... state your case.

    Although not an astronomer, it’s important and helps to have some scientific training, research ability, analytical chops to draw disparate ideas together and be able to formulate a good argument to keep people entertained and roll out a ‘radical new theory’ that rocks a foundation or two. Just sorry the science I’ve highlighted - which impressed me by it’s quality - clearly didn’t impress you lot!

    Meanwhile .... back to BASICS.

    For every rille on the moon to be created by lava, you need clear evidence of a volcano or vent at the beginning ‘source’ of each rille channel, and evidence of cooled residues around that vent, along that channel and built up at the end. ..... heavy viscous liquids that cool solid, do that ..... even when astronomers put (mythical, IMO) surface temps at +/- 170 decrees C during rille creation.

    Because this evidence isn’t visible in most rilles seen at high resolution ..... basic vulcanism tells us lava wasn’t the cutting agent and vulcanologists should tell astronomers they need to drastically rewrite their interpretation of lunar history with regards Triple Point, atmospheric pressure etc ..... around the time of rille creation.

    Because we are told the Mares were largely formed and cooled around the time of rille creation, these residues for this whole process can’t have disappeared completely into the Mares .... or into ‘thin air’ ... in clear circumstances(and there are many) .... where the Mares doesn’t provide a convenient bolt hole leaving absolutely NO TRACE!

    It is much more likely, that at this time, these larger pyroclast basaltic eruptions, on this one side of the moon, had largely died down after the SV Primary Cut period, water condensate build-up(under pressure-note!) in surrounding trapped gas lava tubes, was becoming significant in the very slowly thinning atmosphere, under long-term lingering gravitational forces .....and meteor bombardment plus surface ‘heave’, from lunar lock, fractured these chambers creating rapid ooze of this condensate, cutting through very loose pyroclast dust and beading, from a multiple series of points too numerous to be individual ‘lava’ ooze events.

    We are told ‘weathering’ systems on the lunar surface have been minimal .... restricted by minimal ‘climate’ to just heat and cold(cracking substrate), lava, wind(that created the lunar ‘dunes’) and the mechanism of this new proposal, localised water ooze channels. None of which will remove signs of lava residues.

    Therefore, logic suggests the history of our Moon’s atmospheric pressure at the time of rille creation, as interpreted by astronomers, must be totally wrong. And the lunar Triple Point at that time was totally different - because it doesn’t allow water to ooze flow + significantly erode rilles on the lunar surface.

    Conditions changed drastically on Mars ..... new research I’ve highlighted since this argument kicked off in Feb suggests there are signs things were significantly different on the moon and earth to what was expected/predicted around the time of rille creation.
    Therefore astronomers need to alter their mathematical calculations to encompass all these possible differences. Some are beginning to do that already it seems .... If it needs something as drastic as a kiss on the moon’s surface or much faster spin(which I personally doubt-but let’s not totally rule this out as possibly happening SOMETIME in the Moon’s history, as it is an ‘interesting idea’) ..... my guess is the moon being a fair bit closer due to impacts from severe meteor bombardment is the likeliest explanation.

    If the moon was lunar locked at that time, which is likely as Tig says rilles are largely a Near Side phenomenon .... then astronomers need to find a happy compromise in the moon’s position/spin speed/atmospheric pressure/atmosphere held in place by new data on internal gravitational flux calculations and external gaussian earth blanket protection, coupled with lunar winter calculations ..... to make water ooze theory work for them.

    Because plain simple high resolution observations give them no choice in the matter.

    NO RESIDUES .... AT EITHER END ..... (except SV Primary Cut)

    Ooze Theory is here to stay ..... get over it.

    The maths has to fit the observation .... not the other way around!:rolleyes:
  15. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    Even now the South Pole of Mars has a huge amount of water (the north pole has it as well), according to Wiki you can cover the surface area of Mars with 36 feet of water just from the South Pole. What materials make up the atmosphere obviously affect its weight, Mars has the largest Volcano in the solar system, and lots of volcanos but it hasnt had a strong magnetic field for a very long time. Once its magnetic field was lost its atmosphere has slowly gone away, as Maven actually has been sending data back about. The more interesting story is why we think Mars may have lost its Magnetic Field. Current theory is that a strike by a large heavenly body (Moon size to Pluto size literally), struck Mars near the south pole probably about 4 Billion years ago and millions of years later the volcanic eruptions caused by that damage kicked alot of material in the air and we get literally a water planet for awhile, storms etc, but part of the theory besides explaining the difference in the crust between the north and south hemispheres (which Mariner first saw in the 1970s), is that the strike may have damaged the core enough to cripple the magnetic field which caused it to die an early death. The earth is the only one of the 4 inner planets to still have a magnetic field, despite both Mars and Venus both still being geologically active.
  16. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    That is absolutely fascinating and thank you for taking the time and trouble to post this reply.

    I had entirely forgotten about that volcano on Mars (Mons? Olympus Mons?), but recall reading about it what seems like ages ago.

    And I had not realised that Mars had lost its magnetic field (that is extremely interesting). Nor had I realised that Earth is the only one of the four terrestrial planets to retain a magnetic field.

    However, I do recall, decades ago, watching spellbound, - and horrified - as Carl Sagan explained (on Cosmos) how Venus in some ways had been close to having been Earth's twin, but how the paths of the respective planets diverged dramatically subsequently.
  17. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    Venus is interesting, but just so difficult to explore, its smaller then earth, it has less gravity then Earth and no magnetic field to speak of, but has an atmospheric pressure the same as Earth 3000 feet underwater, and its the hottest planet, much hotter then mercury though its much further away from the Sun. So a rover has to be able to handle huge heat, and huge pressure and yet be light enough to launch from Earth so we can land it on Venus. So it will probably be awhile before we put a Rover on Venus.
  18. AngerDanger macrumors 68040


    Dec 9, 2008
    Do you know why you were horrified?
  19. Scepticalscribe, Oct 22, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018

    Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    When Sagan described the runaway greenhouse effect that had developed on Venus, explained how it may have happened, and issued a calm warning of how such an outcome was not entirely inconceivable on Earth.

    This was the early 80s, remember, and I had never heard of such a thing - and - for that time - Sagan's series was brilliant and spell binding. (Even the soundtrack - by Vangelis - was stunning).

    Yes, I knew about the astonishing atmospheric pressure of Venus and the extraordinary heat - absolutely fascinating.

    Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.
  20. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    I'm not sure whether you are joking, or delusional. No evidence you have presented, or that I even know about, says water created the Rille's, as I keep telling you, you talk about Magnetic fields and mythical atmospheres only a billion years ago, and still can't understand what is plain to all, water doesnt flow on the moon. Also I don't know of any current or former NASA employees (or Astronomers) except myself wasting time here, why do you think a bunch of Astronomers are reading your silly theory?

    First of that is the temperature today on the moon, what do you think you have presented that makes the moon not have the large change in temperature? Also your point is wrong. We can see sources for the lava at most Rille's, as we have talked about (the sand or ice issue, which you either are ignoring or still don't understand), lava flowing into a MARE doesnt have to leave anything to see especially after a billion years worth of moon dust has fallen on it. Lets apply your logic to water, for it to be water we need a source of running water for years to create the Rille, oh wait no Rille starts at a source of water that could run for years, so it absolutely can't be water, and thats not even caring about the fact that PRESSURE kills this entire arguement. There are no clouds to bring the water back to the mountains to flow down again, so you can't create a closed loop system for water to create your channels, we've have discussed this alot already.

    First of all you really shouldn't ever say basic vulcanism, because you have proven time and again, you know nothing about Volcanoes. Since the very device that made the high resolution pics you are talking about, tell us that the sides of the Rille (as did Apollo) are made of Basalt, every volcanologist on the planet will tell you its made by a LAVA FLOW. And again you get into this change the triple point thing. We need alot of atmosphere which there is no evidence of since 3 Billion years ago on the moon for water to EXIST as liquid. Once it lost its atmosphere 3 Billion years ago, there is really no way for the moon to make a new one, we've done those numbers. Even if it had the atmosphere of 3 Billion years ago, you still can't get water to flow for very long, because the day heats up and the water at first evaporates and then boils away.

    Once it came out, it gets destroyed by the conditions on the surface of the moon, also you have water condensating on the moon, it may be possible to generate conditions under ground to do that (but I kinda doubt it) but again the moment it comes out its gone with no atmosphere. Also I believe you are basically inventing Gas Lava tubes as a thing, I'm not sure you understand why them creating pressure would be unusual, and if I understand your modified theory you now have ooze happening simultaneously over the entire length Rille, since you can't have actual flowing water?

    Again, lava residue is there, Apollo found it with the core samples on their Rille, we can see it on some Rille, and really its the ICE/SAND problem as I have said before. And again Triple point is IMMUTABLE, stop saying silly things. You can argue the atmosphere pressure was greater (though you have absolutely no evidence of it), or that the Moon had a stable 4 degrees temperature so Water flowed fine for days at a time. But even with that you can't explain how billions and billions of gallons of water got to the top of the mountain to flow to the bottom creating a Rille, because thats what you need for water to wear away these huge channels (Rille) on the Moon.

    Again nothing you have said affects the Atmospheric Pressure on the moon. Without an Atmosphere, there is not liquid water, without liquid water, you can't have flowing water to create your Rille. All your Magnetic Field and made up crashes (rubs) between Earth and Moon don't create an atmosphere for the moon.

    Again, spinning faster, spinning slower, higher gravity, lower gravity, higher magnetic field, DOESN'T CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE. Without an atmosphere there isn't liquid water, even with the atmosphere it once had, liquid water didnt exist for very long because the pressure was so low compared to Earth. We have no scenario where an atmosphere has gone away and then been recreated in our solar system, but you want me to believe it happened on the moon all so you can have infinite water flow (????) from the mountains on the moon to create a channel that science clearly shows was made by Lava.

    Ooze Theory has a single person who believes in it, you, understand that and learn some science so you can better understand why its wrong.
  21. Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    The key to this whole argument is getting an accurate measurement of the atmospheric pressure on the moon 1-1.5 billion years ago when astronomers say rilles were being created.

    If Tig can point out the research that nails these figures accurately ..... then I will walk away convinced it would be more difficult for water to have eroded most rilles through such loose regolith on our moon.

    ..... I’ve searched academic papers through Google Scholar ..... came up with limited data suggesting huge margins of error (due largely to limited samples/and multiple unknowns in data variations)

    If Tig can highlight more accurate research sources and measurement methods that makes him confident .... I would be interested to study those links.
  22. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    In message #34 you quote from a study done at Marshall with the folks from LPI, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article, looking at that source which leads us to an article in last year's Time magazine which gets us all the way back to the original study which I have link for you below.


    So take a look at the whole thing including the appendices if you want, but this is real science and it quite clearly says no atmosphere for the last 3 billion years and even for the 70 million years it had it, it was only about 1.5x (which Time rounded up to 2x) of current Mars, or basically 1% of Earth's atmosphere which is what I have been using for most of the calculations we've been doing here. This should end it, but I'm afraid it probably won't, one of the things this shows is that the volcano's of the moon haven't erupted enough to create an atmosphere in the last 3 billion years, that kinda kills your theory that it happened.
  23. AngerDanger macrumors 68040


    Dec 9, 2008
    After seven pages, I think it's abundantly clear: @Tigger11 wants all the moon water to themself.
  24. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA

    With at least 100 million metric tons of water at each pole, I am willing to share a litte. With 0% recycle thats over 20 million man years of water at each pole at a minimum given the NASA number of 10K lbs of water per year per person. Plenty of water for even a large colony which of course would actually be recycling the water just as they do on the ISS, which currently runs at 93%, which means even a large colony would have water for basically forever. Its funny I was reading a document about mining the moon the other day, and of course what everyone thinks they want to mine is He3 (Helium 3), which is way more available on the moon, but I am not yet convinced that its cost effective to mine and then bring it back from the moon vs making it in Tennessee like we currently do.
  25. Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    Are you seriously happy with the accuracy of this data Tig?..... A guesstimate of the thickness of ALL the lunar Mares (not sure how they managed that accurately) - a guesstimate of the volumes of ejecta emitted(+/- God knows how much) ...... leading to a guesstimate of atmosphere decay and subsequently an estimated figure of atmospheric pressure decay.(+/-??!!). Surely this isn’t the most accurate way to measure historic atmospheric pressure on the Moon at the time of rille creation?!
    • And this research has no corrections for increased magnetic field recorded in Apollo 15 sample no. 15498, (from this paper published 3 months earlier in Aug 2017: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1700207.full)
    • no adjustments for new data of Earth’s stronger field at the time of rille formation or it’s gaussian blanket effect(sketched in dust coloured patterns on the lunar surface), and
    • doesn’t factor lunar volcanic winter - which helps Ooze Theory
    As a trained scientist to college level, who has worked in and studied a number of science disciplines over 40 odd years, I recognise I am poorly qualified to question astronomy data ..... but those years of experience taught me one thing ..... if a piece of core data, at the beginning of one of these domino series of calculations is just slightly ‘out’ ..... the final conclusions/estimation could be very wrong.

    In any other branch of science, if you tried to build a Theory on a stream of estimates with such a huge potential margin of error ..... you would be laughed out the building.

    [I hope we are not seeing the effects of astronomers knocking around with Quantum Theorists and Cosmologists .... basic observation goes to pot, mathematics turns weird and reality doesn’t exist anymore!]

    This interesting article outlines how difficult it is to measure accurately ancient atmospheric pressures:
    Imagine how difficult it must be to source good Moon rock that gives accurate results.

    Wouldn’t it be more credible to trash Ooze Theory when you have some solid numbers for atmospheric pressure ..... preferably set in several decent rock/mineral samples accurately dated from the time of rille creation?
    Which begs the question .... why have astronomers got so few lunar rock samples that are 1-1.5 billion years old? ...... when they have been sampling around rilles on more than one Apollo mission?
    If astronomers are right and rilles were cut by lava, they should be rolling in samples from young rille lava residues - and should potentially have basalts with gases trapped, formed on the lunar surface, giving a more accurate measure of the lunar atmosphere and pressure at that time.

    The fact they are NOT finding rocks of this age in rille residues is a Big Clue major rock formation died down well BEFORE rilles were formed. Conclusion? - It was water ooze that cut through the very loose pyroclast regolith in a lingering lunar atmosphere and workable pressure.

    Logical people can see this makes sense chronologically - and they also know from trawling through lunar rille photos since February, that Tig’s assertion MOST rilles have a volcano/vent at the source end is simply not helpful ..... ALL rilles need a volcano or vent as ‘the source’ to explain Lava Theory, not an eruption in ‘the vicinity’ and these vents(if 1-1.5 billion years old) should still be visible with residues - because we are told the Mares were largely formed and had cooled by then.

    There are so many unanswered questions with Lava Theory - at least with Water Ooze Theory, we can easily have multiple ooze erosion emission points in the vicinity of an old major eruption - and we can have multiple lava tube fractures at distance from the crater source, either from meteor impact or lunar lock ‘surface heave’ from stronger Earth gravitational/magnetic forces known to exist at that time.

    It all fits together so neatly and perfectly ..... we just need new young rock data confirming the atmospheric pressure at the time let water erosion happen ..... if there is no 1-1.5 billion year old rock, just impact fused basalt pieces in nearby craters ...... that tells you, water ooze erosion is the most likely explanation.

    [Footnote Comment: Measuring accurate magnetic field strength from heat liquified new Moon rock must be incredibly difficult - The degree of crystal/mineral alignment before solidification, is heavily influenced by temperature on impact, shock factors, rock viscosity, and localised polarities ..... and also cooling rates influenced by the extremes of the lunar day/night cycle. Even after sourcing a suitable rock free from ‘interferences’ ..... it must be still hard to calculate the true magnetic field and correlate a possible atmospheric content and pressure statistic for the Moon solely from so few surface samples and estimated emission data when a strong Earth gaussian blanket is known to exist.

    Question:Are scientists EVER going to be able to get a true idea of the REAL historic atmospheric pressure of the Moon(enough to spike Ooze Theory) when so many variables and error factors can drastically influence the results?

    It makes one wonder .....
    ......Funny how astronomers can ‘imagine’ interesting dramatic scenarios for Mars ..... but a simple atmospheric pressure change on the surface of the Moon during it’s rille history seems totally beyond possibility!

    It is well known that even a brief resurgence in volcanic activity can seriously slow down the rate of atmospheric stripping - a phenomenon that surely accelerates exponentially over time? The clear moon we have observed in civilisation’s recent history could be just the accelerated tail end of a long drawn out process ..... resulting in the near vacuum we see today ..... given ‘false longevity’ by a lack of recent lunar rock information.
    Without new rille rock nailing certainty to the pressure question, we can’t reassess if Ooze Theory has a valid place in lunar history and rille creation.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page