Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Waspie_Dwarf

Volcanic activity on early small asteroids

13 posts in this topic

Meteorite study indicates volcanic activity on early small asteroids

(Phys.org) —Examination of one of the Almahata Sitta meteorites (aka, ALM-A, found in Sudan in 2008) by a team of space scientists working in Germany has revealed a volcanic past. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes how they dated the meteorite to just a few million years after our solar system was born and uncovered evidence that it suggests it was produced by volcanic activity.

The meteorite is but one of a collection that came from 2008 TC3, the first asteroid to ever have its collision with Earth tracked by scientists. When it exploded over the Nubian Desert, debris was scattered over many kilometers—over 600 meteorites from it have been found thus far. In this latest effort, the researchers focused on ALM-A, studying it using optical and electron microscopy—they found the rock contained minerals that were rich in a kind of silica that to date has been found to only be producible by certain types of explosions or volcanic action.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the only option is that the asteroid from which the meteorite came, had at least one volcano on it, at some point...

A bit far fetched to think an asteroid will develop a volcano, its far more likely to have been part of a volcanic moon or planet that exploded apart for whatever reason, thats the real mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit far fetched to think an asteroid will develop a volcano,

The only thing far fetched is your continued belief that, despite your total lack of knowledge of even the most basic science, you know better than experts who have spent their life studying and researching. I've got news for you... you don't. Not even close.

Early in the solar system both radioactivity and the heat from impacts would have allowed even small bodies to have molten cores, hence volcanoes on small asteroids are not in the least improbable.

During the early history of the Solar System, the asteroids melted to some degree, allowing elements within them to be partially or completely differentiated by mass. Some of the progenitor bodies may even have undergone periods of explosive volcanism and formed magma oceans. However, because of the relatively small size of the bodies, the period of melting was necessarily brief (compared to the much larger planets), and had generally ended about 4.5 billion years ago, in the first tens of millions of years of formation.

Source: wikipedia

its far more likely to have been part of a volcanic moon or planet that exploded apart for whatever reason

And your evidence for this is? Oh silly me, taniwha said it so it must be true. You've never produced evidence before, why would you start now?

Back in the real world of knowledge, evidence and logic, the "exploded planet hypothesis" has been almost totally discredited.

In 1802, shortly after discovering Pallas, Heinrich Olbers suggested to William Herschel that Ceres and Pallas were fragments of a much larger planet that once occupied the Mars–Jupiter region, this planet having suffered an internal explosion or a cometary impact many million years before. Over time, however, this hypothesis has fallen from favor. The large amount of energy that would have been required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon, do not support the hypothesis. Further, the significant chemical differences between the asteroids are difficult to explain if they come from the same planet. Today, most scientists accept that, rather than fragmenting from a progenitor planet, the asteroids never formed a planet at all.

Source: wikipedia

thats the real mystery.

No, the real mystery is why, when you could ask questions and learn something, you instead just make stuff up and further advertise your lack of knowledge.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

- Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early in the solar system both radioactivity and the heat from impacts would have allowed even small bodies to have molten cores, hence volcanoes on small asteroids are not in the least improbable.

Back in the real world of knowledge, evidence and logic, the "exploded planet hypothesis" has been almost totally discredited

- Albert Einstein

I suppose we cant rule out the planet or sattelite hypothesis entirely so it does at least remain probable, especially since the belt has been losing mass consistently over 4.5 billion years. However big the original mass of the belt is an unknown mystery.

There might be other forces in nature that mimic volcanic explosions, like collisions or premature asteroids getting ripped apart by gravity. Just putting the idea out there ;)

And for all your jumping up and down consider this:

Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid.

Mark Twain

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I suppose we cant rule out the planet or sattelite hypothesis entirely so it does at least remain probable,

You don't know what probable means do you? You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't have a primary school grasp of basic science or a kindergarten grasp of basic logic, but it appears that you don't have a primary school grasp of basic English either.

probable

adjective

1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.

2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

3. affording ground for belief.

Source: dictionary.com

Since the evidence does not support your claim, in fact it is in disagreement with it, the "exploded planet hypothesis," it can not be the PROBABLE explanation. Even if it can not be totally ruled out it remains a highly IMPROBABLE explanation.

improbable

adjective

1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.

Source: dictionary.com

especially since the belt has been losing mass consistently over 4.5 billion years. However big the original mass of the belt is an unknown mystery.

And your evidence that the asteroid belt has been losing vast amounts of it mass is? Oh silly me, you don't have any. Once again taniwha is making crap up so it must be true.

Besides the mass of the asteroid belt is not the only evidence that the "exploding planet hypothesis" is false.

There was also this:

The large amount of energy that would have been required to destroy a planet,

And this:

Further, the significant chemical differences between the asteroids are difficult to explain if they come from the same planet.

Source: wikipedia

Did you not understand these points or did you just ignore them because the truth inconveniently disagrees (as usual) with your guessing?

There might be other forces in nature that mimic volcanic explosions, like collisions or premature asteroids getting ripped apart by gravity.

Your usual M.O. Make up stuff, look foolish. Have someone point out that your wrong. make up more stuff. Look more foolish. You don't learn do you?

Did you read the original article? If you did you clearly didn't understand it. From the original article:

they found the rock contained minerals that were rich in a kind of silica that to date has been found to only be producible by certain types of explosions or volcanic action.
9my emphasis).

In other words there is no evidence to support you. In fact all of the available evidence contradicts you.

Science is evidence based. It is not based on the guess work of the permanently clueless. There is no evidence to support your crap, therefore it has no basis is science.

Just putting the idea out there ;)

As is pointed out to you repeatedly there is a huge difference between an idea and making crap up. I have yet to see any evidence of the former but plenty for the latter from you.

I'm guessing that you don't actually understand that Mark Twain quote either as you make an awful lot of noise but none of it contains any substance. If you did understand it you would stop cackling like a hen...

but you won't. You will just keep making yourself look a fool by making crap up.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie, I can see how erupting asteroids might capture your imagination, but that doesnt make it so and to be fair neither does it make it not so. How do we know that the meteorite that is the centre of controversy wasnt ejecta from the Mons volcanic plateau or some other unknown planets volcano? Judging by the amount of craters littering the Solar system it doesnt take much working out that the asteroid belt is a remnant of its former self.

If these asteroids were in fact volcanic, what did the volcano look like? Could it really resemble any volcano known on Earth? Maybe it is possible that the early asteroids were something totally unusal resembling molten steel or glowing coals with bubbling magma surfaces, but would that mean they formed volcanoes or that they were volcanoes in their own right? In that case would volcano be the correct term to use? Could plasmas cause the same results scientists have found? Such a lot of unanswered questions now that i think about it, I guess until we actually see one erupting any doubt is welcome ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waspie, I can see how erupting asteroids might capture your imagination, but that doesnt make it so and to be fair neither does it make it not so.

EVIDENCE makes it so. Sience is not about what interests an individual, it is about discovering what is true by using the available evidence. It isn't me that is arguing against the evidence. It isn't me that is making stuff up. It isn't me that ignores the evidence because I don't like it. It isn't me that has repeatedly made myself look foolish by advertising that I have no basic scientific knowledge. It's you taniwha.

How do we know that the meteorite that is the centre of controversy wasnt ejecta from the Mons volcanic plateau or some other unknown planets volcano?

Well you don't know obviously. The geologists on the other hand have knowledge and logic on their side. They can tell if a meteorite is from Mars or another known planet by it's chemical composition. This one isn't.

.

Judging by the amount of craters littering the Solar system it doesnt take much working out that the asteroid belt is a remnant of its former self.

It is possible to date impact craters. Most are from a period called the "Late Heavy Bombardment" which occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago. Since then impacts have been fairly uncommon.

Whilst it is believed that the asteroid belt did once contain as much mass as the Earth the excess mass was lost with in a million years of the asteroid belt's formation. Since then it's size has remained stable. There was never enough time for a planet to form there before the vast majority of the material was lost. Jupiter's gravity prevented a planet ever forming.

The "exploded planet hypothesis" is dead because all the evidence shows it did not and could not happen.

If these asteroids were in fact volcanic,

There is no "if", the evidence show they were.

what did the volcano look like? Could it really resemble any volcano known on Earth?

I don't know.

Maybe it is possible that the early asteroids were something totally unusal resembling molten steel

Steel is a man made material, it is not found in nature.

or glowing coals with bubbling magma surfaces,

Coal is a fossil fuel and not found in meteorites.

but would that mean they formed volcanoes or that they were volcanoes in their own right?

Yes.

In that case would volcano be the correct term to use?

Volcanism is the phenomenon of eruption of molten rock (magma) onto the surface of the Earth or a solid-surface planet or moon, where lava, pyroclastics and volcanic gases erupt through a break in the surface called a vent. It includes all phenomena resulting from and causing magma within the crust or mantle of the body to rise through the crust and form volcanic rocks on the surface.
(my emphasis)

Source: wikipedia

Could plasmas cause the same results scientists have found?

What part of the following did you not understand?

they found the rock contained minerals that were rich in a kind of silica that to date has been found to only be producible by certain types of explosions or volcanic action.

Such a lot of unanswered questions now that i think about it,

You are making the mistake of mixing up what you don't know with what science doesn't know. You could close that gap but you would rather make crap up.

I guess until we actually see one erupting any doubt is welcome ;)

What part of the following did you not understand:

During the early history of the Solar System, the asteroids melted to some degree, allowing elements within them to be partially or completely differentiated by mass.
{my emphasis)

We aren't going to see volcanism on asteroids because it stopped billions of years ago. However we (and when I say "we" I'm excluding you obviously) know it happened because it has left overwhelming evidence that it happened. If you chose to ignore that evidence that is up to you, but unless you can produce evidence that contradicts the accepted view you are just making wild guesses... and wild guesses have no place in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVIDENCE makes it so. Sience is not about what interests an individual, it is about discovering what is true by using the available evidence. It isn't me that is arguing against the evidence. It isn't me that is making stuff up. It isn't me that ignores the evidence because I don't like it. It isn't me that has repeatedly made myself look foolish by advertising that I have no basic scientific knowledge. It's you taniwha.

Well i guess im a fool for the truth then. Anyway, i would point out that the headline is a bit misleading. To say "...volcanic activity on early SMALL asteroids..." suggests to me that it is thought that SMALL asteroids are capable of the type of geological processes that eventuate in volcanic explosions. That is why i pictured early SMALL asteroids were whizzing about like hot coals.

Regardless it must depend on what is defined as by a SMALL asteroid? Anyway if this whole idea is really any sort of scientific revelatio it is old news because hasnt it already been recognised as far back as 2012 that volcanoes were present on BIG asteroids, that is asteroids BIG enough to have molten cores?

Im sure you will correct me if im wrong :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually early asteroids having volcanic activity makes sense to me. Every thing bashing in to one another is going to create a lot of heat and until it cools down it would have molten core no matter what size it is. It takes a long time for rock to cool down, bigger it is the longer it takes, but even if it is small there is going to be a time when it is molten and subject to boil and expand and every time it gets hit it heats up all over again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is old news because hasnt it already been recognised as far back as 2012 that volcanoes were present on BIG asteroids, that is asteroids BIG enough to have molten cores?

Old news to the rest of us, but as you have been arguing against the idea of volcanic activity it's clearly a new concept to you.

Im sure you will correct me if im wrong

Instead of making crap up, being wrong and then arguing in support of the crap you've made up why don't you use that time to research the correct answer. That way you will have used your time wisely and I won't have to waste my time correcting your idiocy. Or are you scared of actually learning something?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually early asteroids having volcanic activity makes sense to me.

Not only does it make sense but it is now supported by the evidence. Once again we have an example of good science. A hypothesis makes a prediction of what should be found if it is correct. Evidence is then found which supports the hypothesis.

Every thing bashing in to one another is going to create a lot of heat and until it cools down it would have molten core no matter what size it is.

Early in the history of the asteroid belt impacts would have been more common. Large asteroids would have formed and then been broken apart again. The orbits would have been chaotic.

In a short period of time Jupiter's gravitational dominance will have ejected some objects whilst pushing others into more stable orbits. Collisions would have become much more infrequent, warm objects will have cooled.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually early asteroids having volcanic activity makes sense to me. Every thing bashing in to one another is going to create a lot of heat and until it cools down it would have molten core no matter what size it is. It takes a long time for rock to cool down, bigger it is the longer it takes, but even if it is small there is going to be a time when it is molten and subject to boil and expand and every time it gets hit it heats up all over again.

Where did everything that bashes into each other come from though? Moons let loose from their planetary grip for some reason might have collided toward each other couldnt they? And what if these moons were already volcanic to begin with? A chunk of this rock might eventually collide into earth and we might find it and when we examine it then...oh dear...we have a major contender :yes:

Todays favorite hypothesis favours the asteroids being an unformed planet rather than an exploding planet x but why?

If planet x wasnt massive to begin with why would anyone expect that by the combined forces of volcanic eruptions, gravitational tides and collision that it WOULDNT be torn apart while still in its infancy? The bigger planets are such bullies.

None of this means i am right but it is something to consider, like why are the rings of saturn or jupiter not volcanic? They are colliding and accreting arent they so why dont they radiate like hot coals or erupt?

But also consider this, thermal rings of heat will easily be visible encircling distant suns if asteroid belts really do behave in volcanic ways. But is this the case? Not that i know of but who knows what might be found the further back in time we glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old news to the rest of us, but as you have been arguing against the idea of volcanic activity it's clearly a new concept to you.

Instead of making crap up, being wrong and then arguing in support of the crap you've made up why don't you use that time to research the correct answer. That way you will have used your time wisely and I won't have to waste my time correcting your idiocy. Or are you scared of actually learning something?

Good solid advice :tu: If you believe in a scientific theory that is soon proved wrong, have you also wasted your time, was that theory also crap in hindsight? If no one questioned science how would progress ever be made? I am not claiming i am right or you are wrong, it is more likely we are both wrong. But no one should feel ashamed to accept, or feel ashamed to question any hypothesis. What is unknown can be reasoned using logic and debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.