Top 5 Most Recent Articles
Top 5 Most Popular Articles
NEWS by David Tytell
Ice Volcanoes Everywhere?
Maybe it has something to do with the sweltering heat these days, but it seems that every time I turn around, someone else is talking about ice volcanoes. First it was Saturn's moon Enceladus. Then two other Saturnian moons had them: Tethys and Dione. Now Pluto's largest moon, Charon, might be spewing frozen geysers.
The latest result comes courtesy of a group of astronomers who pointed the 8-meter Frederick C. Gillett telescope at Gemini Observatory toward the famous dwarf planet's satellite. Using Gemini, Jason Cook (Southwest Research Institute, Colorado) and Steven Desch (Arizona State University) captured some of the best spectra of Charon to date.
Quick mini-lecture about ice. In the solar system, water ice comes in two flavors: crystalline and amorphous. Crystalline is fresh (like what you find in your iced coffee), and it only turns amorphous (or old) after being bombarded with cosmic rays and solar radiation. You can make old ice fresh again with heat — such as by hitting it with meteorites — but most folks would expect ice in the outer solar system to be amorphous.
And that's what made Charon so wacky. Past observations revealed that it's completely coated with crystalline ice. The whole moon somehow needed to be resurfaced with ice every 100,000 years. But the impact environment out there isn't ferocious enough to "freshen" ice that quickly. The ice needed to come from somewhere else.
Turns out that it's all about antifreeze. In the press release and a paper in Astrophysical Journal the group touts "the best evidence yet for the existence of ammonia hydrates on Kuiper Belt objects." Just like on Earth, ammonia acts as antifreeze and depresses the melting point of the water.
Putting the pieces together, heat from decaying radioactive elements deep inside Charon warm the subsurface ice. In time the ice melts (thanks to the presence of the ammonia hydrates) and it oozes out cracks in the frozen surface. If that happens under pressure, you get ice volcanoes.
Snow cones anyone?
This artist illustration shows Charon with Pluto in the background. Geysers — like what is seen at 10 o'clock — might be the reason Pluto's largest satellite is coated with fresh, crystalline ice.
Software Bisque/Mark C. Petersen, Loch Ness Productions/Sky-Skan, Inc.
Quick mini-lecture about ice. In the solar system, water ice comes in two flavors: crystalline and amorphous. Crystalline is fresh (like what you find in your iced coffee), and it only turns amorphous (or old) after being bombarded with cosmic rays and solar radiation. You can make old ice fresh again with heat — such as by hitting it with meteorites — but most folks would expect ice in the outer solar system to be amorphous.
And that's what made Charon so wacky. Past observations revealed that it's completely coated with crystalline ice. The whole moon somehow needed to be resurfaced with ice every 100,000 years. But the impact environment out there isn't ferocious enough to "freshen" ice that quickly. The ice needed to come from somewhere else.
Turns out that it's all about antifreeze. In the press release and a paper in Astrophysical Journal the group touts "the best evidence yet for the existence of ammonia hydrates on Kuiper Belt objects." Just like on Earth, ammonia acts as antifreeze and depresses the melting point of the water.
Putting the pieces together, heat from decaying radioactive elements deep inside Charon warm the subsurface ice. In time the ice melts (thanks to the presence of the ammonia hydrates) and it oozes out cracks in the frozen surface. If that happens under pressure, you get ice volcanoes.
Snow cones anyone?
Posted by David Tytell, July 19, 2007
The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
First comments (from 21)
Some Assumptions
Posted by astro-nut
July 20, 2007 At 05:00 AM PDT
It is interesting to note that there is no evidence whatsoever for there being geysers on Charon, but scientists speculate that there are because the ice can't possibly be millions of years old. Did anybody ever consider that maybe the ice isn't that old? Maybe only 6000 years old, as the Bible, the only eyewittness acount of the beginning of the universe, tells us? When scientists have preconceived notions about things, such as the age of the solar system, they have to go to great extremes and make fanciful speculations when the evidence proves otherwise. But they do not question their assumptions.
6000 years of Creation?
Posted by Cerddor
July 20, 2007 At 02:52 PM PDT
I'm sorry, Astro-Nut, but nowhere does the Bible claim that the universe is just 6000 years old. That dubious piece of information comes to us from a 17th century Archbishop named James Ussher who used a lot of questionable assumptions, not the least of which were a) that the Bible contains ALL human lineage with no gaps, and b) that the world was created in 6 days. Since the phrase "son of" can easily mean "descendant of," and 'day" can easily mean "period of time" -- in many languages -- we immediately have only a lower limit set on the time, not an upper one.
Look at a distant galazy and do some simple math. There is no possible way to come to any conclusion other than the light from that galaxy has been traveling for millions of years to get to your eye. Therefore, the universe is at least that old.
Why do people want to put limits on God? Why confine him to 6000 years or to a few hundred parsecs?? No, the God I [attempt to] understand and worship is eternal in existence and ability; His creations and infinite in size and scope. Any apparent conflict between His creation and the bumbling attempts of priests or men to limit Him are the mitakes of men. The Bible explains only WHAT He did, not HOW or WHEN He did it. I Thank Him we live in a day when science is beginning to help us understand those aspects, so that I can feel a greater appreciation for Him than our ancestors could.
Ignorance is Bliss
Posted by LordBoss
July 20, 2007 At 07:34 PM PDT
Listen guys, mixing religion and science is a tricky thing. I look at it as impossible since religion is based on faith and science on actual observable evidence. Taking the Bible literally is not its true purpose and shouldn't be used on a scientific basis. Anyway, trying to make sense of religion and mixing into it all the scientific data of today just gives me a headache. Sooner or later I'll meet my maker and then he/she can explain it. Until then, ignorance, in my case, is bliss.
Ignorance is Bliss
Posted by LordBoss
July 20, 2007 At 07:34 PM PDT
Listen guys, mixing religion and science is a tricky thing. I look at it as impossible since religion is based on faith and science on actual observable evidence. Taking the Bible literally is not its true purpose and shouldn't be used on a scientific basis. Anyway, trying to make sense of religion and mixing into it all the scientific data of today just gives me a headache. Sooner or later I'll meet my maker and then he/she can explain it. Until then, ignorance, in my case, is bliss.
If you want to believe the Bible, believe it all
Posted by astro-nut
July 21, 2007 At 05:28 AM PDT
In response to Cerddor:
The Bible very clearly states that the earth was created in 6 days in Genesis 1. After it tells what God did on a certain day, it ends with the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the (?) day", which cannot be construed to mean anything but a literal, 24-hr day. In addition, when God gives the basis for the 7-day week, in Exodus 20:11, he says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is". There are many more examples I could give, but that would take too much space. In reguards to Ussher's dates, there is no evidence for gaps, and even if there were gaps, the world was already created, so that would not give time for evolution.
The distant light problem has been dealt with by many people, including a very scientifically accurate theory by Dr. Russell Humpreys (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp for an in-depth explanation). Besides, the Big Bang has a light travel problem of its own.
Believing what God said in his Word is not limiting God: rather it is believing what he said. For example, if you said "I am going to observe the planets tonight", and I told someone else, "Cerddor is going to observe planets tonight, they could say, "you're limiting him to only planet observing. How do you know he's not going to observe deep-sky objects?" Am I limiting you? No, I just believed what you said. By the same token, saying God created in six days is not limiting him, it is believing him, which is he wants us all to do. If the Bible can't be trusted in the foundational areas, why trust it at all?
But it can always be trusted
Posted by astro-nut
July 21, 2007 At 06:30 AM PDT
The Bible CAN be trusted, especially in foundational areas. While the Bible is not a science textbook, wherever it touches on science, that is repeatable, observational science, the kind that can be done in a laboratory, it is accurate. I would be interested to see any evidence that proves the Creation account is wrong. And don't try to give me radiometric dating; that is riddled with evolutionary assumptions, and fudged to give the dates that fit the evolutionary time scale. The Bible is not "sanctimonious superstitions", rather it is our History Book of the Universe. The Bible predicted many things that would have seemed wierd at the time they were written, but have been verified by modern science, such as expansion of the universe, the earth is round, etc. To trust an eyewitness account is much more logical than man's hypotheses.
Indirect Evidece?
Posted by astro-nut
July 21, 2007 At 06:37 AM PDT
I am not saying that is impossible that there be geysers on Charon. There could be, but at the present there is no evidence for them whatsoever, just the fact that the evidence doesn't fit the accepted theory. Rather that modify the theory, they propose that something else must be there to make the theory work. I can assure you that when the New Horizons spacecraft passes Pluto, if there are no geysers on Charon, evolutionists will propose something else, rather than modify their theory.
Non-science
Posted by Journeyman
July 21, 2007 At 09:48 AM PDT
If anyone feels that "Astro-Nut" is subverting this forum to proselytize in violation of the posted rules of this website (advertising, posting objectionable material, etc.), then I urge them to report the violation accordingly. Attempting to respond to Astro-Nut's postings with careful reasoning and objective data is pointless, and serves only to provide him/her an ego boost.
Insanity
Posted by LordBoss
July 21, 2007 At 05:15 PM PDT
Well I'll say this. The only thing this proves without a doubt is that when you mix religion ans science together, people get crazy. Astro-Nut is just that. A nut. And all of us who try to reason with him are just as nuts for doing so. Just keep that in mind some thing cannot be debated.
Language
Posted by Cerddor
July 23, 2007 At 05:06 PM PDT
Astro-nut, thank you for the responses. I appreciate the opportunity to understand and debate our beliefs.
Your own argument supports mine. In your mind, and that of your friend, you’ve imagined a limit of 7 objects on my hypothetical observing targets. But, I could be observing dwarf planets, exo-planet evidence (through internet hookup to a powerful instrument) or – assuming I had access to some extremely powerful instrument that you know nothing of (isn’t that what God theoretically has?) – I could be observing planets in other galaxies. Or I could be speaking in another language (wouldn’t God, Moses, or whoever do that?), or from a different era of this earth’s existence (same?), where the meaning of “planet” is “any body which orbits another.” So indeed, I could be looking well beyond the solar system at objects in the “deep sky.” Your being correct or not is dependent on your interpretation of my language.
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date:
|
comments (21)