Posted on 09/29/2011 2:11:10 PM PDT by decimon
Washington, D.C.—Only six months into its Mercury orbit, the tiny MESSENGER spacecraft has shown scientists that Mercury doesn't conform to theory. Its surface material composition differs in important ways from both those of the other terrestrial planets and expectations prior to the MESSENGER mission, calling into question current theories for Mercury's formation. Its magnetic field is unlike any other in the Solar System, and there are huge expanses of volcanic plains surrounding the north polar region of the planet and cover more than 6% of Mercury's surface. These findings and other surprises are revealed in seven papers in a special section of the September 30, 2011, issue of Science.
Surface Surprises
Two of the seven papers indicate that the surface material is more like that expected if Mercury formed from similar, but less oxidized, building blocks than those that formed its terrestrial cousins, perhaps reflecting a variable proportion of ice in the initial accretionary stages of the planets. Measurements of Mercury's surface by MESSENGER's X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Spectrometers also reveal substantially higher abundances of sulfur and potassium than previously predicted. Both elements vaporize at relatively low temperatures, and their abundances thus rule out several popular scenarios in which Mercury experienced extreme high-temperature events early in its history.
"Theorists need to go back to the drawing board on Mercury's formation," remarked the lead author of one of the papers, Carnegie's Larry Nittler. "Most previous ideas about Mercury's chemistry are inconsistent with what we have actually measured on the planet's surface."
Volcanism
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Quicksilver MESSENGER ping.
homeschool discussion
Once again, scientists admit everything they had stated as (fact, scientific proof) about an object in the cosmos, was completely wrong.
Humans can be very entertaining, even when they’re not trying to be.
"...doesn't conform to theory."
"...current theories..."
"Theorists..."
"Most previous ideas about..."
Indeed.
They didn’t go anywhere but that album is probably worth some money.
God laughs at many of man’s ‘theories’. He knows how it was done. I love learning, but I also love the truth. Not afraid of where the path leads to. Unlike secular scientists today. They’ll never find him, just the laws and the things He created. If it isn’t material they’ve already ruled it out because to them they can’t explain how it could exist, so the possibility of it existing never gets looked at.
Obviously the closer our observations get to Mercury the better they will be.
As some folks know I have my own theory about what would be found on Mercury. First, there has to be a deep hole for the post where the space faring civilization fastened their boom arm. We should be able to compute backwards to the time when that hole aimed due North or due South in the Plane of the Ecliptic. That device helped them use Mercury's momentum to help accelerate loads of phosphates, calcium, sulfur and other materials useful for biological life forms out of Venus' orbit as they stripped it's surface.
Those loads went, generally, to the asteroid belt where some of them were probably left behind.
We know they failed to strip Earth totally and actually left behind a good 40% of the crust behind.
The "post hole" on Mercury probably extended deeper than the one on the Moon because Mercury was simply not as advanced in its development and had a still ductile upper mantle. That's probably where that massive lava sheet came from ~ when the massive carbon fiber device was dismantled and shipped to Earth Orbit the mantle responded by spilling out on the surface.
Worth considering Venus' orbit was probably much closer to Earth's when the mining started. It moved closer in to the Sun as the surface was stripped away. Mercury may have been in orbit around Venus at the start ~ but as both bodies orbits decayed they assumed independent orbits.
Earth too moved in on its orbit when it's turn came. Probably warmed things up so that some level of life beyond single cell cyanobacter could survive. That gives the time of the event at about 600 MYR ago ~ give or take a few MYR.
I would say that it doesn’t sound like they had a theory, but instead had some hypotheses about how Mercury formed. They gathered empirical evidence; their hypotheses turned out to be incorrect. Now they must formulate new hypotheses.
This is how science works. The process of having to go back and rethink one’s original hypothesis in no way detracts from the reliability of the scientific method, as some posting in this thread seem to imply.
“Oh, God, Pride of Man, broken in the dust again”
The pride of a few in this thread, yes. Imagine the false pride of some fools using computers to knock science.
One of the strengths of the scientific method is that, when faced with data that oppose a theory, it is required to account for that data and rework its theories. Having said that, however, it does have its limitations also.
Nonsense. Everything previously known about Mercury is "settled science."
I guess the libs are correct. This world IS loaded with deniers. Will the misery never end. If only they would be still, scientists could have a much more peaceful existence.
Any real scientist knows they know little in the scheme of things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.