Enceladus Being Fitted For A Theory

The mission of the Cassini spacecraft which started in 2005, and remains on duty to this day, is quite a remarkable accomplishment. Cassini has gathered much needed direct observations which we can learn from. Water ice-jets which create ice grains escape the moon’s gravity providing material for one of Saturn’s rings.

What surprised scientists who believe in the solar system being billions of years old, was the fact that Enceladus is active, creating heat  (5.8 gigawatts) where its supposed old age of billions of years should have frozen it out because of its long distance from the sun and as NASA points out, “Enceladus just doesn’t have the bulk needed for its interior to stay warm enough to maintain liquid water underground.”

Tidal heating became the only option for the source of the heat discovered on Encelaadus. And scientists have been trying to fit it into this theory ever since. Here is one of the tests…

“Scientists with the Cassini team created a map of the gravitational tidal stress on the moon’s icy crust and compared it to a map of the warm zones created using Cassini’s composite infrared spectrometer instrument (CIRS). Assuming the greatest stress is where the most friction occurs, and therefore where the most heat is released, areas with the most stress should overlap the warmest zones on the CIRS map.

However, they don’t exactly match,” says Dr. Terry Hurford of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “For example, in the fissure called the Damascus Sulcus, the area experiencing the greatest amount of shearing is about 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) from the zone of greatest heat.”

With this falsification, evolutionary scientists invoke a wobble that creates heat beyond what tidal heating does. The question I would pose to such a theory beyond the “wobble” would be, why are neighboring moons like Mimas which is bigger than Enceladus and endures more tidal stress than Enceladus is not active?

Back in January of 2010, evolutionary scientists from NASA tried math, and here is their conclusion…

 “Calculations told scientists it would be impossible for Enceladus to have continually produced heat and gas at this rate. Tidal movement – the pull and push from Saturn as Enceladus moves around the planet – cannot explain the release of so much energy.”

Now what, try a different theoretical approach? Evolutionary scientists are in the business of preserving theories for as long as possible rather than proposing new ones, because many times it’s based on popularity among them and also where a pattern of funding for the research is plentiful. In a recent publication space.com which originated in Nature, we see Enceladus being fitted for a theory…

“Dione is pulling in a rhythmic way on Enceladus and preventing its orbit from circularizing, which it would otherwise do,” Spencer, who wrote a commentary in Nature about this research, said. “[Enceladus] is sometimes a bit closer to Saturn than at other times, and that means that the tidal stresses that Saturn imposes on Enceladus … are constantly varying, so Enceladus is continually being stretched and twisted by those forces, whereas if it were in a circular orbit, those forces would be constant and nothing would change.”

“These tidal forces could be responsible for heating up the interior of the moon, Spencer said. Tidal heating — the distortion of the moon’s shape that produces heat through friction — could be a reason for the moon’s warm interior, but that only explains part of the heat production.

“The amount of heat observed coming from Enceladus is larger than what scientists expect to observe theoretically, Spencer said.”

There are certainly details to be worked out, but there is no other reason for Enceladus to be so extraordinary compared to its neighbors other than that it has tidal friction from Saturn’s tides that is heating the interior,” Spencer said. “We’ve known that for a long time, and this [research] is actually going to give us a nice handle on how that works because we’re directly seeing the effects of those tides.”

This is a typical problem with evolutionary research, they try and bluff their way through when their theory doesn’t match up with direct observations. Promising its readers it’s going to eventually be a scientific breakthrough. However, being fitted is one thing, but direct observations suggest, Enceladus is much younger than 4.5 billion years old and was designed by God!

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Enceladus Being Fitted For A Theory

  1. Michael: “What surprised scientists who believe in the solar system being billions of years old,”

    Scientists don’t beliieve.
    This age (4.5 billion years) is measured.

  2. … but direct observations suggest, Enceladus is much younger than 4.5 billion years old and was designed by God!

    Michael will you please tell us by what possible stretch of the imagination that anomalous heating of Enceladus logically implies a young age of the universe?:
    > Enceladus generates more heat than expected, because if ti were a million times younger than 4.5by, _______________.
    > The proposed solutions to the anomaly are incorrect, and imply a young age for the entire universe because _____________________.

    PLEASE SHOW YOUR LOGICAL CHAIN OF REASONING TO THIS CONCLUSION>

    You can’t, can you?

    It’s just another If a scientist is wrong, then ipso facto GOD DID IT. Complete non sequitur.

    You can believe what you want as an article of faith, but please don’t lie about the science.

    .

    (And yes, hospital food this time was just as bad as always.)

  3. This age (4.5 billion years) is measured.

    Is this a direct or indirect measurement?
    What are the assumptions in this measurement?

  4. If you figure out a way to measure time “directly,” there will be a large prize waiting for you in Stockholm.

    Sheesh.

  5. If you figure out a way to measure time “directly,” there will be a large prize waiting for you in Stockholm.

    Irrelevant.

    What are the axioms and why are they justified?

  6. <blockquote
    What are the axioms and why are they justified?

    Meaningless question. Go to bed, refresh you mind, and try again in the morning.

  7. Olorin doesn’t know nor cares to engage in the actual science.

    How about yerself, Chaz? I;ve asked before and you dodge the question

    As I told you before, I have almost a half century of working closely with research scientists in several fields.

    So I know that you are a thimble-rigger, a flimflammer, a poseur.on this subject.

    State your creds, or shut up.

  8. No, you didn’t. You’ve said you are an engineer. Having done both, I know that research science is nothing like engineering.

  9. Non sequitur, one does not require a (research) science degree to question axioms in any area of knowledge. Fallacious Olorin strikes again!

  10. You can only question something when you actually understand what is being said.
    Which you, “Chazing”, do not.
    A research degree would help a lot (but not necessarily so, of course).

  11. Conflation fallacy.
    I am not questioning “WHAT is being SAID” Eelco.
    I asked 2 questions ABOUT the dating method.
    Apparently, a research degree (like yours) does not necessarily aid in distinguishing between the two. Pity.

  12. Chazing, you were questioning my knowledge of how research science is conducted.. I asked for your creds in saying that. You dodged it once again.

    CHAZING< YOU ARE AN IGNORANT NINCOMPOOP IN THIS AREA. Answer the question directly, or shut up. And remember that persistent willful ignorance is only a hair’s-breadth away from rampant stupidity.

  13. Olorin, my 2 questions were for Eelco not you. One can divine this by realizing that the quote before the questions were from Eelco.

    I did NOT ask any question as to HOW research IS conducted but WHAT were the axioms (and how were they justified) as I explained in my previous post. So you have followed Eelco into a conflation fallacy, which of course, is clearly expected from you.

    Qualifications are only relevant to someone who is desperate for an ad hominem. I wonder who that could be?

  14. I missed this non-sequitur comment, can you figure it out Olorin/Eelco?

    Scientists don’t beliieve (sic).
    This age (4.5 billion years) is measured.

  15. @Chazing: measuring is (obviously) not the same as believing … if you can’t even grasp that, than I fear you won’t grasp anything …

  16. @ Eelco, that’s a straw-man. Leaving that aside, there is another fallacy there. So if you can’t even grasp that, then I fear you won’t grasp anything.
    @ Olorin, says the man who posted 12 fallacies in two posts (and more in other posts besides).

  17. says the man who posted 12 fallacies in two posts

    Twelve alleged fallacies. Methinks your logic artillery is sadly out of calibration.

  18. @ Eelco; Touché.

    BTW, where are you hanging out these days? Mauna Kea seems to free of vog recently.. (SO2 levels 0.0-0.1). The Maui snow is not good right now, but the trades usually blow it away from the Big Island.

  19. Hi Olorin,
    I’m currently in Southern California (for a science collaboration meeting), but hope to go observing on Mauna Kea later this year (with the JCMT).

  20. The latter, mostly. But usually back in Nederland once a year. Doesn’t feel like my home anymore, after all those years away. I feel most at home in Scotland, actually.

  21. Scotland! Watching Scotland try to pull away from England, probably reminds you of an opposite situation with Flanders …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s