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
    Dubdrifter magic again, you don't understand a paper so its wrong. You do understand thats a peer reviewed document with lots of eyes on it coming from two distinguished establishments, you need to understand how the data was used before deciding someone who doesnt understand triple point or the boiling point of water under low pressure before calling this into question. Also you are being silly, because understand this document is the only document that thinks the moon had an atmosphere capable of sustaining water. So if they are wrong, that means no atmosphere EVER. However they aren't wrong. They arent guessing, they are using every device orbiting the moon since Apollo to gather the data. I always think it hilarious that you look at a picture taken from LROC, and tell us what it is and call it science, yet actual scientists, look at the pictures and all the other data gathered from that orbiter and others and come up with what it actually is and they aren't correct, because the picture (and only the picture, because thats what you care about), tells you (and only you) something else.

    Once again I point out, Magnetic Field has nothing to do with thickness of the atmosphere, it protects the atmosphere from being stripped, also as I have pointed out to you the magnetic field you are so excited about is 1% of the weak Magnetic Field the moon originally had. So your first two arguments have no effect on the Atmosphere. Also, lunar volcanic winter (which we don't know actually happened) makes it colder, that doesnt really help you, it won't keep the temperature in some magic way between 0 and 7 degrees, and once it hits 7 degrees there is NO water.

    LOL, that was really funny there Dub. What branches of science have you worked in and studied for the last 40 odd years that taught you to disbelieve the triple point, that water and only water can flow and create channels, and that you are the ultimate decision maker on what a picture shows? Thats what I have learned from your scientific ability. I am not sure I buy that you are 60 year old scientist who is arguing these points and not understanding what he is talking about.

    Actually that 10 year old article is about a study finished years ago, and doesn't really say what you are saying. It describes different ways they are doing checking for the air pressure, in billion year old rocks and rain drops.

    You keep thinking that astronomers are the ones analyzing the rocks, etc, Geologists analyze the rocks, literally the only real scientist to walk on the moon was a geologist. Marshall has more different types of scientists working there then most anyplace on the planet (so does, Houston and JPL for that matter). Acting like the Astronomers are confused by the rocks, is just silly. We have a few 100 lbs of rocks brought back from the moon, none of which show your magic atmosphere or that the atmosphere ever could have flowing rivers, so you think they need to find more, I think you need to realize they don't exist.

    Again liquid water cannot exist without an atmosphere, even with the Atmosphere that the paper you now think is wrong says, water would boil away at 7 degrees. The Moon has never had an atmosphere strong enough for weather, which is required to create a water canyon. Thats the only way you can continually get water to the source to flow down and create the canal, and that only works if you magically can get the temperature to stay between 0 and 7 degrees at the pressure the moon once had.

    Again you are getting silly, WOW you have been looking at Rille pictures since Feb 2018, that is awesome. I mean obviously you know alot more about them then people who have been studying them since the Apollo missions. As for the Residue, you keep ignoring the whole dust covers the moons surface.

    Your entire new Ooze theory is based on liquid water breaking out form Lava tubes, you don't seem to understand that it would be much more likely for LAVA to come out of lava tubes as everyone has figured out.

    Its not neat at all. Literally tell me it Milk from the cow that jumped over the moon, and thats equally likely to your new (or old) ooze theory. And you can't have it both ways. You can't say the Rille aren't created by lava because there is no lava by them and then say instead its water oozing out of LAVA tubes.

    No actually its not for those actually doing it. Also please don't mention Gauss or Gaussian ever again, since you have Absolutely no idea what Gaussian is.

    We have that, a great paper with lots of sources and lots of review. Its a document you have used to "prove" ooze theory, but now that we have actually looked at what it means as compared to your theory, its wrong, bad science, you dont know why its that, but you are sure it is, because it doesnt prove your theory.

    Because the data from all the sources (not just looking at pictures) supports the martian theories. We have data dating all the way back to Viking and all the data Maven is sending us, and they look at all that data and previous analysis and we get new theories. This is what you do, you look at a picture, and say I think thats water and then argue for over 8 months that water is creating the Rille. Also it doesnt matter if the atmospheric stripping was cut back. Because with the atmosphere in question we have liquid water existing from 0-7 degrees ONLY. So no flowing water, not river canyons, so NO OOZE THEORY.

    Only to you is it still a question, we don't have rain clouds on the moon, so your entire theory that water flowed and created a canyon can't be true, now your theory is that Lava channels, (filled with Magic ooze) collapsed and created Rille's. These are the same lava channels that couldnt collapse and create the canyons when filled with lava, but filled with magic ooze they do it, even though liquid water can't exist without pressure.
  2. Dubdrifter, Nov 6, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2018

    Dubdrifter thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 30, 2015
    Apologies for delayed reply-sciatic distraction. Never experienced pain quite like it! Fully recovered now. Back to the Theory ....
    So now you assume you know what I do and do not understand?Oh dear. Don’t you think you should rein it in a bit?.... this “we’re qualified, it’s peer reviewed, you’re being silly, how dare you question anything,” tack?
    ..... This is an open discussion thread where everybody can have an opinion on the research being proffered. Sometimes a new perspective and awkward questions from outsiders can be just what astronomers need to re-evaluate ‘sacred truths’.
    If Lava Theory is based on sound data and not estimates and projections, then it should be easy to defend without resorting to derogatory comments. Isn’t it better for your argument to step out of ‘God pontification mode’ and address why you think the data is ‘accurate’?
    .... Counting volcanoes(accuracy possible if all visible and not buried under the Mares) ..... estimating the thickness of the Mares(impossible to be accurate), ..... estimating the emissions(impossible to be accurate historically), ..... estimating degree of solar stripping from very limited data on magnetic field strength from rocks sampled up to time of rille formation(very low accuracy) .....

    Is astronomy the only science where it is acceptable to take one solid number multiplied by 3 variables with huge potential +/- margins of error ..... and use that to GUESS the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the moon at the time of rille creation?..... and then use that as an argument for totally discounting Ooze Erosion on the surface of our Moon?
    A lot can happen on the moon in the 2 billion years from Mares creation to rille creation .... and from that time to the present day scenario.
    The Moon that has sustained significant large impact bombardment since the Mares was formed, and maybe, possibly, even a very low velocity ‘kiss’ or close encounter with Earth sometime in it’s history(still love the idea, despite Tig strangely ruling it out completely). It’s strange Tig can happily describe a scenario with a Pluto sized body bumping Mars(Post130) and barely leaving a scratch, but not our Moon gently ‘kissing’ the Earth and sticking around through mutual gravitational attraction - showing large impact damage, possible repeated ‘kiss’ damage marked in the Mares.

    If Needham+ Kring’s paper could back up those projections with measurements of gases trapped in rocks at the time of rille creation ..... then these estimates would be worth more serious consideration. Until then ..... astronomers need to get a lot of decent relevant rock samples before they write their theories in ‘stone’.

    The problem is: the rock sample illustrated below, no.15556, taken from a basalt exposure along the lip of Hadley Rille is dated 3.4 billion years old.


    Despite having expert geologists on board these missions, NASA struggles to source lava rock they say cut the rilles 1-1.5 billion years ago.
    This absence of lava residues young enough to explain their theory of rille erosion ..... is the nail in the coffin for lava theory ....logic therefore suggests either this rille was cut 3.5 billion years ago and later pyroclast ejecta was blown in to line it later ..... or ooze water cut this channel through loose ejecta exposing this area of earlier lava residue deposit during a period of amenable lingering atmosphere.
    Astronomers seem certain evidence points to rilles being formed 1-1.5 billion years ago ..... so they need to tweak their atmospheric pressure predictions instead .... because accurately dated rock residues just ain’t there, Guvnor!
    As you said:
    What is ‘wrong’ is Tig trying to ‘dress this data up’ as an ‘accurate’ indication of historic atmospheric pressure at the time of rille creation.
    Please don’t rephrase anything I write ..... to convey a different meaning. It’s already clear, the stronger the magnetic field, the greater the protection from stripping over a longer period, which on a VERY volcanically active Moon gives time for various gases to build up in layers of different densities causing differentials in pressure, and when huge temperature variations caused by lunar lock kick in, moderate swirling winds will be generated - which explains the smoothed lunar ‘dunes’ the rover vehicles gamboled over.

    This study in 2014 suggests the lingering atmosphere was being topped up as recently as 18 million years ago: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/recent-volcanic-eruptions-moon
    ..... which suggests Needham and Kring’s atmospheric projections around the time of rille formation may need even more adjustment.
    I’m an open type of guy and am happy to admit when there are gaps in my knowledge(wish astronomers were equally honest)..... like the Triple Point problem for water flowing on the Moon far back in it’s history and the unusual lunar locking day/night cycle problem and it’s implications ..... none of these were discussed on the science courses I studied at college ..... analytical biochemistry and microbiology.
    My Dad was a geographer/geologist who taught senior high school level and was educated at Cambridge University .....so as a family we were immersed in this stuff with occassional field trips.
    But this isn’t about my lack of qualification to comment .... but what is ‘accurate’ scientifically.

    As regards your assumption I don’t understand liquids, pressures and boiling points mentioned in your first quote above - as a trained scuba diver who has experience in underwater archaeological excavations you don’t ignore the theory on nitrogen narcosis.
    (P.S. See my new Current Events thread(2,400 yo intact Black Sea wreck- Prof Jon Adams ran a project I worked on coincidentally-I wouldn’t normally mention it, but when people make derogatory comments, the assumptions need correcting .... nice timing).
    So what am I saying that’s different to the article? Please tell me, I’m interested?
    This study may be 10 years old, but the science is still solid, and probably a more accurate way of determining historic atmospheric pressure than projected data when so many other variables may upset the mathematics.
    [Thinking aloud, I doubt if you could apply the other element of analysis in the article, ‘raindrop theory’ to measurements of meteor impact craters - too many variables and unknowns - entry velocity for instance].
    Where do you get the impression I don’t know who does what in scientific analysis? Geologists give astronomers the hard data on rock analysis - astronomers use this older rock data to create a “fantasy” projection they think applies 2 billion years later!..... they are the ones that should be honest, hold their hands up and say, ..... “currently we have insufficient data to give an accurate reading of lunar atmospheric pressure at the time we currently believe most rilles may have been formed”.
    It’s quite possible for the lunar atmosphere to have been stripped away rapidly in the last 1billion years since rille creation ..... as surface vulcanism died radically, as the core magnetic dynamo seriously weakened and Earth’s gaussian protective blanket also weakened.
    Whose ever talked about the need for weather systems? ..... the SV ‘canyon’ Primary Cut shows residues, so is most likely cut by a large vent from the Herodotus eruption - The other ‘canals’ are minor - ooze can happily carve/dissolve those over 2 billion years - even with triple point restriction - no problem. It’s very loose ejecta easily eroded/dissolved ..... I say ‘dissolved’ because let’s be realistic, some volcanic condensate could possibly be chemically quite corrosive - as you know, some volcanic lakes on Earth you just don’t swim in.
    ......Imagine these chemicals leaking from the fractured gas chambers I’ve described, running on top of the cooled Mares but below the surface of the very loose pyroclast ejecta, dissolving the subsurface ejecta, eventually evapourating, leaving fine deposit ..... gradually the ejecta settles and over 2 billion years a rille is formed ..... no lava residues visible except a little dissolved basalt staining from exposed edges of the Mares ..... no surface water ‘stream’ patterns visible like we see on Mars .... just a subtle evapouration end point marking the final reach of this subsurface dissolving process .
    Most eruptions we are told, have a wide area of liquified rock full of trapped gases creating a labyrinth of gas pockets that just fail to puncture the hardened surface. As the system cools, water, a major biproduct of rock liquifaction(that created our seas) condenses under pressure and collects in large volumes in these chambers, released by proximal meteor impact fracturing and gravitational ‘heave’ from lunar lock.
    You have got a cheek. Having studied all the major sciences, you now assume Gaussian effects are somehow beyond my comprehension?! [Climb out of your ivory tower, the altitude has gone to your head].

    If you recall Post 124, I introduced the idea into this thread. It’s not difficult to assume there might be a protective blanket effect of an increased Earth’s magnetic field protecting our Moon at the time of rille creation. In Post 130 you happily admitted you hadn’t calculated the effect that might have - and labelled it “gaussian” - a term I happily adopted - I am still awaiting the results of those calculations.
    We know from the magnetism detected in Apollo 15 sample no.15498 that the field was much stronger than predicted ..... Somehow I don’t think your figures will be accurate because it is impossible to know accurately what the distance was between the Earth and Moon at that time.
    It’s a good paper when it measures what happened over 3 billion years ago ...... it’s projection may possibly have weaknesses for the period of rille creation because it doesn’t reference all the new info on lingering magnetic field/lingering eruptions or have atmospheric pressure calculated rock data from that period to support that ‘projection’.
    Like the one in the last paragraph of your Post 165 that says a large moon or Pluto size planet may have hit Mars and triggered a new wave of volcanic activity to create an atmosphere and shift Triple Point on the Martian surface enough to create lakes, rivers and possibly more? ..... Yet when Dubdrifter(a non-astronomer) says there is evidence the same may have happened on our Moon, but to a much lesser degree in the form of relatively insignificant oozings, ..... suddenly those scenarios are impossible!
    You really shouldn’t post in a hurry. Please read my points carefully. Let me repeat, I have never mentioned this is a weather related phenomenon! ....nor that rilles are collapsed lava tubes or channels - that is your theory, remember?.
    Oh, .... and the ooze isn’t “Magic”...... it’s a very real scientifically viable idea .... just volcanic liquid condensate related to the liquified rock region it came from ..... if that produces clear Volvic-style drinking water, BINGO! (P.S.other brands possibly also available close to the lunar surface. P.P.S. No advertising revenue was received from this unintentional promotion).

    So in Summary: ..... Despite Tig’s referenced article being published in Nov 2017 .... it’s taken an agonising 9 months since Feb to get astronomers to conclude “the moon once had an atmosphere capable of sustaining water” ...... we just need new rock data to take the last step and prove ooze could erode most rilles after 95% of vulcanism had died down .
    My guess is both theories are valid for different scenarios - take SV ...
    It’s not the first time a geological feature started off as a lava cut channel, then water took over to redefine it’s contours.
    Over and out.
  3. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    You have said move the triple point over 1/2 a dozen times so far. So we know you don't understand that concept at all, and thats one of the things we are talking about here. Open discussion is fine, changing the laws of physics and not understanding those same laws aren't the same thing.

    This is what you keep doing, Lava theory isn't counting on the report you are talking about, your silly OOZE theory is. You are tearing down a pretty good theory that says the moon had an atmosphere of 1% of Earths for about 70 million years about 3 Billion years ago. Whether that existed or not doesnt matter to me. Lava flows without an atmosphere, Water doesnt, Lava flows above the triple point of water, water doesnt. You need that theory you are tearing up. It doesnt matter to everyone that realizes the Rille were created by Lava whether this theory is correct or not.

    I'm not an astronomer, most of the people who wrote the papers you are quoting are not astronomers. Also thats not what that document does, but I am not sure its worth explaining the theory to you, because I don't really care if the theory is correct or not (it most likely is), because it was 3 Billion years ago and thats long before the Rille's we are talking about were created and even with that atmosphere, you don't have flowing water for any length of time.

    I rule it out, because I and dozens of others (probably more than that) have done the math, it can't happen, the moon dies the earth dies. As for the other, the Pluto sized object didn't bump into Mars, it killed it, thats what you are missing it slammed into Mars and turned a bunch of it (maybe all it) molten and was swallowed up by Mars. Literally the theory there is it killed the rotating core inside Mars.

    No they really don't. Your theory requires a larger atmosphere then anyone has been able to come up with to exist on the moon for millions of years to create vast canyons with water on the moon. You need a weather system to get the water to the mountains so it flow down the mountains to the Mares and create vast canyons. You have no proof any of that existed, the walls of the Rille are coated with Basalt, unlike what you would expect from a water created event.

    I'm sorry the samples taken from Hadley show 100% that the Rille was created by Lava. There is lava residue throughout the Rille, I have not idea what you are ranting about.l

    Magnetic field of 1% of the previous magnetic field, doesnt protect it from solar winds and really solar winds aren't your issue, pressue is your issue and you have no atmosphere to create a pressure to let you have water. None of this gets you water flowing on the moon.

    It doesnt suggest that at all. Needham's projections show that the large eruptions of 3 Billion years ago, kicked up enough material to create an atmosphere 1% of Earths on the Moon. Then it is eaten up over 70 million years or so and is gone. These little eruptions of the last 100 million years are all tiny, not alot of material, not alot of flow, they aren't creating an atmosphere to allow water to flow. All those vast volcanoes and huge flows creating the mares give us an atmosphere of 1%, the tiny amount of eruption shown in this article didnt create anything (or top it off as you are saying), what is it topping off? The atmosphere has been gone for 2.9 Billion years or so.

    I stand by my statement, you have been arguing about triple point too long, for anyone to believe that you actually understood why water can't flow on the moon. As for being a trained scuba diver, that just tells me you should know more about this then you are showing, or you are relying too much on a dive computer. I've been certified since 79 and an instructor since 85, if the tank weren't closed I'd invite you to come dive at the Space and Rocket museum in the tank we taught the astronauts, you know those guys who actually go to space.

    You said how difficult it was to calculate the age, the study was to come up with a good way to do it. The study did that, literally its like finding a 20 year old article that talks about how we are going to put ISS together and saying this is going to be super hard, when its already completed when you wrote that thought. Its a silly concept.

    The fact you go on and on about Astronomers this and Astronomers that, when 90% of what you are posting from are not said by Astronomers. You have decided that everyone (except you) who writes about space is an Astronomer. The Moon's high atmosphere is 1% of Earth, thats water flowing from 0 degrees to 7 degrees celsius, thats not giving you river valleys. Apparently your arguement now is that some unknown force (M*A*G*I*C) kept the atmosphere from wasting away over the predicted 70 million years and instead it lasted 2 billion years to the Rille creation. You still can't explain how water flows and creates River Valleys with a 1% atmosphere.

    Me everytime I explain how a river valley is created. Water flows from high point to a low point, to get water to the high point you need a weather/seasonal system, thats how it works everywhere in the solar system. You can't explain how millions of gallons of water get to the top of the Volcano to flow down and create the river valley.

    All the major sciences, THATS AWESOME, missed triple point somehow and miss key points on virtually every paper discussed in this conversation, but ALL thats just great. And yes given how your theory has devolved during the conversation, I think Carl's work is beyond you.

    As I told you then it doesnt matter for this discussionj, because since there is no atmosphere 1 billion years ago on the moon, a protective magnetic blanket from the Earth (which I still doubt happens) doesnt create an atmosphere, no atmosphere means no flowing water, its all frozen or disassociated.

    Again, the Magnetic field goes away on the moon, the atmosphere goes away, it doesnt matter if a 1% of original strength magnetic field shows up, because the atmosphere is GONE.

    Again SHIFTING TRIPLE POINT ISNT A THING. I really can't take you seriously with your continous posting of that statement. Use something else equally scientific, like

    1) Because of the Unicorns

    2) Because of the Large Amount of Green Cheese on the Moon


    3) My Dad Ivan Ooze Ruler of the Moon said so

    Channels created by flowing water are a weather and season related phenomenon on all planets and moons in our solar system. You don't have to mention it at all, you need to understand that for water to flow from high ground to low ground and create channels, you need the water to get to the high ground and that requires a weather system. I keep asking you how does the millions of gallons of water get to the top of the mountain to flow down to the Rille. Water can't condensate without an atmosphere. Again you seem to miss the forest because of all the trees.

    Article was published in the October 9th issue of Time. Its not a secret, if you are trying to kill a theory, Time Magazine isn't the way to go. A transient atmosphere (their words not mine), over 3 Billion years ago, doesnt get you running water 1 Billion years ago, only you believe that.

    Water can't flow on the moon, what part of that do you not understand.
  4. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Bravo. Just bravo.

    And thank you for responding with such an informed and well argued post, and with such patience to the stuff the OP persists in arguing and posting.
  5. AngerDanger macrumors 68040


    Dec 9, 2008
    One-hundred-eighty posts in and nobody has considered how many lives could've been spared if the inhabitants of Pompeii were better swimmers?! :rolleyes:
  6. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    That is a funny statement as a child I always thought I would just swim away from the Volcano. According to Pliny the Younger, boats were used to pick up lots of the survivors of Pompeii, and his Uncle Pliny the Elder actually died doing that, he is probably the most famous person killed at Pompeii. Though it killed a couple thousand, its believed the majority of the city of 16000 or so survived. I was so surprised by that when I went there, they are always talking about the city being buried and everyone dying.
  7. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    Suffice to say that Pliny the Elder is one of my heroes. But - from what I have read - he declined to be picked up by boat, desiring to remain to chronicle this eruption, so busy was he describing (in meticulous detail) what was occurring in front of his fascinated eyes.
  8. Tigger11 macrumors 6502

    Jul 2, 2009
    Rocket City, USA
    Just a recap of our moon data, since this has gotten really big and maybe gotten confusing.

    1) The moon currently has basically no atmosphere (0.00000001 Pascals)
    2) The Poles of the Moon have lots of Frozen Water in deep craters
    3) NASA currently believes that the moon had an atmosphere about 1% of earths current atmosphere (ie about 1000 Pascals) 3 Billion years ago and that it faded after about 70 Million years
    4) The Pressure for the triple point of water is 611 pascals, if the pressure is lower then this Water cannot exist in liquid form.
    5) A location on the moon spends 13.5 days in darkness (very cold) and then 13.5 days in the light.
    6) At 1% Earth pressure, water is liquid from 0 degrees centigrade to 7 degrees centigrade, higher then 7 its vapor.
    7) Solar Winds destroys water on the moon
    8) All but 6 or 7 of the Sinuous Rille are on the near side of the Moon
    9) The Atlas of the Sinuous Rille is located here


    and features all 195 Rille. (Ok thats something new, but really cool).

    Ok so lets think about water for a minute and let Math help us out.

    (SV ie Dubdrifters Rille), is over 100 miles long, its 1/2 a kilometer deep and several kilometers wide if would take 1000s and 1000s of years for water to dig it as he is suggesting by the Ooze theory, its been called the Grand Canyon of the Moon, lets think about that. The Grand Canyon was dug over 17 million years by the Colorado River, currently the Colorado River is flowing at an incredible 510 Cubic Meters a Second according to the USGS. Thats over 134,000 gallons a second or 11.6 Billion gallons a day. That is the force that created the Grand Canyon. How much water would it take to create just the one Rille we are talking about?

    Lets say its 100 miles (its bigger but thats fine), and we want a stream that 2 feet deep and 5 feet wide, just that amount of water is 40 Million gallons, and noone here thinks a stream 2 feet deep and 5 feet wide is going to create a 500 meter deep 4 kilometer wide Rille. And literally 40 million gallons is just enough water to reach the 100 miles, the minute the water gets there, we stop the water at the top. Now to actual carve the Rille, you are going to get way more water then that to come out of the mountain and its going to have to continuously flow, and it doesnt have a bunch of sources like the Colorado River. Mountain snow isn't melting, clouds aren't raining down and flowing into Rivers. Literally what we have here, is a liquid flow from a single source, carving a canyon for a 100 miles, and without Atmosphere and Weather to constantly move water to the highlands so that water can continually flow down the mountain you aren't going to get a River Canyon, which is what Dub thinks happened here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page