A Venus Deposit on Mercury

Venus and Mercury cavorting in 5th Century bas releif

NASA MESSENGER data poses huge problems for the dynamo model of the Earth’s magnetic field, because Mercury’s field is almost a perfectly symmetrical dipole.  This will force a review of the accepted hypothesis as suggested by deputy project manager, Brian Anderson, of the Johns Hopkins University APL:

“The most recent flyby gave us our first measurements on Mercury’s western hemisphere, and with them we discovered that the planet’s magnetic field is highly symmetric … Even though the rigorous analyses of these data are onging, we expect that this result will allow us to limit the theories of planetary magnetic field generation to those that predict a strongly rotationally aligned moment.”

The fact that the dynamo effect cannot produce a symmetric field was proven mathematically by T. G Cowling in the Royale Astronomical Journal in 1933 and has been confirmed by a number of theoretical physicists since, showing “that it is not possible for fluid motions to generate a magnetic field with axial symmetry”.  Other weakness of the dynamo effect are (a) that the rotation of the planet is thought to drive the whirling of the liquid outer core, but a day on Mercury is 58 Earth-days long; (b) it requires a previously existing field, i.e. it is a self-exciting dynamo, and the theory provides no explanation of the fields origin.

Mercury – The former core of Mars

The dipole symmetry proves that the magnetic fields of all planets originate as super-currents in their solid inner cores.  As demonstrated by Badding et al. (previous post), this FeH superconducting state forms only under super-high pressure.  Since the overburden of Mars’ outer shells was removed 2,700 years ago the superconducting state has sunk deeper within Mercury and the strength of its field is correspondingly reduced.  But its continuing presence provides the great observable bonus of its almost perfect dipole symmetry, proving that the magnetic field of the Earth also arises from its solid core.  Thus the ponderous circulation of liquid iron in the outer core of the Earth is responsible only for the slowly changing distortions of the field which we observe.

The attempted imposition of the dynamo effect on Mercury forces the further assumption that it has a liquid core. Attempts to validate this claim have led a group from Brown University to claim they have ‘found’ a massive volcanic flow in MESSENGER photos of the north polar regions.  This interpretation required considerable imagination since there are admittedly no volcanoes, as such, on Mercury.  In fact, the putative lava-covered region is not darker or lighter than the rest of the surface.  To find the source of the lava, the Brown group had to look 125 miles outside the volcanic region to find an exposed ‘fissure vent’, from which thousands of cubic miles of lava supposedly flowed into the region.  Amazingly, the lava vent remains uncovered!  This one smoother area is touted as ‘proof’ that there is volcanic activity on Mercury, in articles circulated world-wide.  The true origin of this ‘lava’ is explained below under ‘Discussion;.

Mercury in Cyclic Catastrophism

Mercury was the solid iron core of Mars up until 687 BC.  At that date the entire world (our world) witnessed its exiting through what is now called the Valles Marineris, because Mars was orbiting the Earth at only 44,000 km.  Mercury zoomed rapidly around the Earth to the East (accounting for its mythical speed) while the outer shell of Mars drifted away from the Earth to the West.

Mercury and Venus ‘cavorting’ in a 5th century BC bas relief.

Mercury , also known as Hermes and Hathor, then interacted with proto-Venus (then only 3,000 years old)  for several hundred years, before all three planets, Mars, Mercury and proto-Venus finally settled into their current orbits.  At that date, Mercury was a hot, glowing, pristine sphere of solid iron, covered with a thin layer of FeS.  As it rapidly cooled, it began to contract, forming the many wrinkle ridges on its surface, some of which extend halfway around the planet.

During the previous 3000 years (3700 to 700 BC), the then-complete Mars had  orbited the Earth (geostationary) and been subjected to enormous tidal forces due to rapid alignments with the Moon or the Moon and Sun combined.  These alignments resulted in the ejection of innumerable rock bodies from the northern third of Mars, as evidenced today by the fact that the northern third of Mars is some 7 km lower than the planetary datum.  The innumerable ejected bodies of all sizes and mineral composition which did not fall to the Earth or the Moon, now form all meteorites, near-Earth-asteroids and short-period-comets.  However, the great majority of  these have fallen (and are still falling) toward the Sun and myriads have struck Mercury, producing the  uniformly, heavily pocked surface in only the last 2,700 years.  This regolith now covers the entire planet, obscuring the FeS layer closest to the solid iron core.  The surface is imagined by planetary scientists to represent billions of years of bombardment.  Is it too much to expect that MESSENGER will show the continuing high rate of impacts and cause a re-evaluation of Mercury’s age?  Along these lines – what ever happened to the Mercurian grid noted in the earliest photographs of Mercury?  Has it already been obscured by the continuing influx of meteorites?

Many impact craters on Mercury have smooth interiors, but these are not due to filling by lava.  They merely reveal the solid impregnable iron from which the impact has blasted away the FeS and regolith blasted from Mars throughout the Vedic Period (3687 to 687 BC) deposited earlier.  Scientists will attempt to determine the chemical composition of the surface material (regolith) based on its color, but this is not definitive.  The composition is very similar to that of the meteorites that fall to the Earth – all were blasted out of Mars within the last 6,000 years.

Mercury’s Strange Polar Features

As explained in my previous post, the super-current in the solid FeH core of the Earth is ‘pumped-up’ *Faraday & Lenz laws) by bursts of charged particles from the Sun (CMEs), which spiral into the magnetic poles and are subsequently absorbed in the atmosphere, creating the auroras.  These bursts impinge much more frequently and intensely on Mercury because it is much closer to the Sun, and may have kept its magnetic field strong or even reversed its polarity.  A primary difference on Mercury is its lack of an atmosphere.  As a result, these bursts of charged particles smash into the solid planet around the poles, producing (ionized?) radar-reflecting terrain features never observed on other planets, which some scientists have imagined are water deposits – highly unlikely on a planet so close to the Sun.

Discussion

Ron,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment on my recent post.  It prompted some more research. I found a series of short papers on Mercury from MESSENGER at lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpse2012′pdf/sess401.pdf. There is some fascinating material in these, partly because the authors have not yet decided what data they want to suppress at this early date.  (The same thing happened when the first data from Pioneer Venus was received, then later they ‘circled the wagons’ and ‘excuses’ began). Each paper on MESSENGER data has typically 10 authors, some repeated on a number of papers. One titled Mercury’s Internal Structure As Constrained by MESSENGER Observations by Hauck, et al. states that ” Mercury may have a solid layer of FeS at the top of the core”, – this is correct but of course not for the correct reason. As you picked up, I suggested that the entire solid core of Mars (i.e. Mercury) left the planet in 687 BC when orbiting the Earth, and carried with it a layer of FeS from its outer core.

Your suggestion that more sulfur may have been deposited in the close encounters between Mercury and proto-Venus that occurred in the next few centuries, is well founded.  Because proto-Venus was still outgassing copious amounts of S8 into space at that date. This was called ‘Varuna’s glorious robe’ in the Vedas and was the source of the mysterious Mitra-Varuna god pair in which Mitra (solid), the glowing body of Venus, which could be seen in the daytime (Mitra ruled the day) and Varuna’s robe of out-gassed S8 could only be seen at night (Varuna ruled the night). The question then arises as to how close the encounters between Mercury and Venus might have been.

The Northern Rise

Fig. 2. Extensive flows cover many craters at north pole of Mercury

Fig. 2. Extensive flows cover many craters at north pole of Mercury

MESSENGER supplies the answer.  They certainly were close enough for this S8 to add to the FeS.  Jim Head et al. recently announced (with great hoopla) that an enormous ‘smooth’ volcanic flow covered a vast area in the north polar regions, but in a paper presented at the lpi meeting titled Long-Wavelength Topographic Change for Mercury … Sean Soloman (Carnagie) et al (Head listed as one of the authors) states “that the smooth plains interior to the Caloris impact basin display long wavelength variations in topography [which] appear not to be the result of volcanic [origin]. The magnitude of these variations, up to ~3 km, is such that portions of the northern floor stand higher than the basin rim.”  They call this the “Northern rise: Within Mercury’s northern smooth plains is a broad area ~1000 km across that rises 1.5 km above the surrounding terrain. … There is strong evidence that the lavas that formed the plains were highly fluid …[yet] it is marked by a positive free-air gravity anomaly.”  meaning that it was piled up on top of the rigid surface.  Their interpretation is that this Northern Rise was uplifted after the plains were emplaced, but in the ‘standard model’ still 3.9 billion years ago.

Northern Rise Basalt from Venus Encounters

What obviously  happened was that proto-Venus (still a molten sphere of rock covered with a thin basalt crust today) and Mercury had such a close encounter in the three centuries following the end of the Vedic period (687 BC) that proto-Venus was tidally drawn out into a ‘teardrop’ shape, the tip of which was deposited at the north pole of Mercury, whereas the solid iron Mercury was not distorted, even by the weight of the Venus basalt. This material now forms the mysterious Northern Rise. This is confirmed in a paper by Nittler et al. in Science vol.333, published by geochemists who, using another of MESSENGER’s instruments have confirmed that the rise is basalt – chemically different from the rest of Mercury’s surface.  The Soviet Venera lander transmitted back data from the surface of Venus over 30 years ago that it is indeed basalt. As discussed in a related post, this deposit became permanently magnetized by the stronger field of Mercury just after its final release, and now distorts Mercury’s field toward the north.

Oh, to have the audience of millions of readers that Velikovsky had when he wrote “Worlds in Collision”, now that we have the conclusion of all his work.

John 15:18 KJV) If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

~ by Angiras on June 20, 2012.

5 Responses to “A Venus Deposit on Mercury”

  1. […] foreground of this image shows what I believe is a basalt deposit from Venus, which fell during a close encounter in the several centuries after Mercury’s release, during […]

  2. Dale,
    Sorry for the delay. Since you submitted your comment a lot of new material has become available. I hope you have read the updated version of the latest post. Mercury was hot but not melted when it was the SOLID CORE of priori-Mars. A body that massive contains an enormous amount of heat and cools from the surface downward by radiation. The liquid lava that fell at Mercury’s north pole from proto-Venus only a century or so after it left priori-Mars, obviously didn’t even make a dent. It sits on top of the solid iron planet. The craters are all the result of regolith impacting regolith – all stuff ejected from priori-Mars. This layer is already so thick that it covers much of the FeS stuck to the original surface and the S8 outgassed from proto-Venus during their encounters.
    John

  3. Ron,
    Thanks for your thoughtful response to my blog. I found a summary of short papers on Mercury from Messenger at lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpse2012’pdf/sess401.pdf. There is some interesting stuff in these, partly because the ‘scientists’ have not yet decided what data they want to suppress at this early date. Each paper has typically 10 authors, some repeated on a number of papers. One on Mercury’s Internal Structure As Constrained by MESSENGER Observations by Hauck, et al. States that ” Mercury may have a solid layer of FeS at the top of the core”, of course not for the correct reason. As you picked up, I suggested that the entire solid core of Mars (i.e. Mercury) left the planet in 687 BC when orbiting the Earth, and carried with it a layer of FeS from its outer core.

    Your suggestion that in the close encounters between Mercury that occurred in the next few centuries is well founded, because Venus was still outgassing copious amounts of S8 into space at that date. This was called Varuna’s glorious robe in the Vedas and was the source of the mysterious Mitra-Varuna god pair in which Mitra, the glowing body of Venus, which could be seen in the daytime (Mitra ruled the day) and Varuna’s robe of out-gassed S8 could only be seen at night (Varuna ruled the night). The question arises as to how close the encounters between Mercury and Venus were.

    Another amazing observation from MESSENGER data proves that they certainly were close enough for this S8 to add to the FeS. Jim Head et al. previously claimed (with great hoopla) that an enormous ‘smooth’ volcanic flow covered a vast area in the north polar regions, but in a paper titled Long-Wavelength Topographic Change for Mercury … Sean Soloman (Carnagie) et al (Head listed as one of the authors) states “that the smooth plains interior to the Caloris impact basin display long wavelength variations in topography that appear not to be the result of volcanic [origin]. The magnitude of these variations, up to ~3 km, is such that portions of the northern floor stand higher than the basin rim [1,3].” … “Northern rise: Within Mercury’s northern smooth plains [10] is a broad area ~1000 km across that rises 1.5 km above the surrounding terrain. … There is strong evidence that the lavas that formed the plains were highly fluid …[yet] it is marked by a positive free-air gravity anomaly.” Their interpretation is that this Northern Rise was uplifted after the plains were emplaced, only 3.9 billion years ago.

    Ron, this is fantastic and these ‘scientists’ will never explain it !! What happened was that Venus and Mercury had such a close encounter that a part of the liquid basalt that runs in the cracks of Venus was tidally pulled over to Mercury and landed near its north pole, forming the Northern Rise. This is confirmed in a paper by Nittler et al. in Science vol.333, geochemists who indicate that the rise is basalt – different from the rest of Mercury’s surface. The Soviet Venera lander transmitted back data from Venus over 30 years ago that the surface of Venus was basalt.

    Thanks for your interest and understanding,
    John

    (John 15:18 KJV) If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

  4. John,

    Regarding Mercury and the sulfur you reason would be on its surface:

    Do you know of any means to distinguish between sulfur accompanying Mercury as it exited priori-Mars as opposed to any sulfur which may have (speculation on my part here) accumulated on Mercury’s surface as it interacted with Venus for several hundred years. Here I’m assuming that a substantial enough amount of sulfur was being jettisoned from Venus which could have potentially accumulated on Mercury’s surface and intermixed with any which originated from priori-Mars. So sulfur speciation is the concern here, if this intermixing scenario happened.

    I would think the sulfur from priori-Mars would be largely iron sulfides.
    I would expect most of the sulfur contributed by Venus to be various allotropes of elemental sulfur—the vented sulfur forms you reason are responsible for Venus’ relatively extreme atmospheric pressure. Could these have crossed interplanetary space from Venus to Mercury? Do you know of any mythological writings which may help determine an approximate distance between them at that point?

    I bring this up because there is MESSENGER orbital data pointing to 4 wt% sulfur in the surface of Mercury spectroscopically accessible by the orbiter’s x-ray fluorescence spectrometer (10 micrometers is about the maximum depth from what I remember reading). The author’s point out that concentration is about 10 times more than found here in Earth’s or our moon’s silicate portion. And Venus spent more time overall interacting closely with Mercury than with this planet or our moon, so it seems reasonable that relatively more sulfur could have accumulated on Mercury from Venus if the transfer was physically possible.

    Regarding the spectroscopic methodology:
    Exactly how much of Mercury’s surface was sampled I’m not certain. Also, I wonder if the orbiter’s highly elliptical orbit causes any signal to noise problems if measurements are taken when it is furthest away. In addition, I suppose it is often problematic to coordinate your x-ray fluorescence measurement times to such a variable excitation source—our sun.

    I’m just wondering how much sulfur that the MESSENGER probe data reveals for Mercury’s immediate surface may have come from Venus.

    Do you know if Bepi-Colombo is going to include a lander so that maybe a deeper and possibly more revealing soil/regolith sample can be taken and analyzed for elemental composition? If so would actual sulfur speciation be resolvable?

    Thanks for the revealing and insightful postings.

  5. John: Has anyone, or have you done any research to determine how long Mercury would have been hot, after leaving Mars for the last time? I wonder if the impacts made when it was still hot are visible??

    Dale

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

 
%d bloggers like this: