A collision between Mars and Jupiter

[Marcus MacGregor]

Hello,

A few years back I had the idea that the topography of Mars could have been largely created by a close encounter with Jupiter. I posted it on several forums and got some great responses. (And some angry trolls, but hey it is the internet so what can you do)

The introduction video to this idea is here:

http://youtu.be/mGOsw8CLxmE

This is a flyby that tears out the Hellas basin. I found that a great many people thought that it went by the Roche limit. I'd just like to point out ahead of time that Mars has a fairly high density so the Roche limit does not come into play.

I made a video showing the location of some things around Jupiter because of this common confusion.

http://youtu.be/PJumdRcZcUA

I just made a video showing what I consider to be the most easily grasped evidence of this:

http://youtu.be/zHGX_ZQwGdA

I have a video planned for the trajectory of the event. I found that many people are convinced that falling into Jupiter or being flung out of the solar system are the only options. I found many planetary scientists I contacted recommended the L4 or L5 lagrangian point as the start of the trajectory. I have decided to adopt this rather than my initial idea of a highly elliptical Mars triggered by a orbital resonance. L4 would accelerate while L5 would decelerate leading to the correct Hamiltonian.

I also have a video planned for the timing of the event. One commenter noted that we would of totally noticed this happening. I guess he was thinking that it was breaking news. We have been watching Mars for quite some time and although it saddens me that I have to make it explicit- This event occurred before the invention of astronomy.

So I'm posting on this forum to see if there is other flaws of this idea that I have not addressed. I want to run it by as many people as possible before I start the laborious task of submission to journals.

So, if you think you have a debunking concept or just a facet of the idea that needs more depth please tell me. It may be something I have worked out already but have not mentioned, but hopefully it might be something that I have missed. I have had this idea for awhile so it appears obvious to me, I understand if it does not appear so to you; I'd like to know why you have a dubious perspective.

If you don't accept the idea but don't have a reason why, perhaps you can share it with someone who can come up with a reason.

If you like the idea and have a piece of supporting evidence I have not mentioned, that would be great too.

If you simply like the idea, I always appreciate a like, share or nice comment. The internet can be a very negative place.

Thank you.

[Robittybob1]

Looks more like a meteor/asteroid impact crater to me. I think an event that pulled material off the surface would leave a heaped surface not a hollow.

I have not seen other examples of extraction events.

[Mordred]

I'm sorry I don't see this as feasible. Not from the videos, I assume you have the related math?

 

Key questions.

 

1) diameter of Jupiter compared to diameter of Mars. Why would only a 2000 km region only be affected?

 

2) why would it dig a deep slope to its depth instead of a smooth gradual slope over a wider region.

 

3) the Hellas crater has a steeper slope on one side compared to the opposite side. How do you account for this.

 

The far larger diameter of Jupiter compared to mars I would expect a far larger diameter of influenced region essentially the entire side facing Jupiter should be affected.

 

secondly I don't see how you would get the crater walls in full dimensions in your scenario.

 

Images I've seen of the Hellas crater are common in shape and depth of an impact. Erosion has been shown to remove the signs of melting Particularly since their is evidence of once liquid water in the region.

 

I'd like to review the math involved to answer the above

Oh forgot one key question. How does your model account for the greater depth of the Hellas crater on the west side?

Mars has an axis of rotation of 26 degrees. Hellas crater is 67 degrees on the south side. Your videos has Mars approaching on the left side of Jupiter. This would place the North hemisphere closer to Jupiter. This also doesn't include the concerns on how Mars is in its current orbit. I will need to look up some details on that to see if there is any feasibility in the combination of the location of the HEllas crater, compared to Mars current orbit and how this compares in terms of the laws of angular momentum . As well as the details of mars current orbit.

 

If you have those details on hand please post them

[Marcus MacGregor]

Excellent comments, very insightful and helpful.

 

I do imagine there is a range where the influence of gravity deforms another surface to just leaving a mound, all the way to where it deforms the entire side or even entire surface. This is simply an intermediate value.

 

The videos do make many artistic liberties, including the tilt of Mars and the z direction of the impact.

 

The north side facing Jupiter depends what 'season' Jupiter is in. Thank you, that helps limit the possible trajectories.

 

I'm working on several different scenarios regarding the trajectory. The main one is that Mars was caught at L5 for a short time and looped around Jupiter causing a gravity "assist" which actually decelerates it. A quick calculation shows that the new total energy is about the same as the new orbit. However, the e is higher than what we see today (Mars does still possess a fairly high e) so this requires perturbations from other planets to slowly correct itself over a long long time. Alternately, a second close encounter can correct it quickly.

Alternately, I read about a N-Body simulation that posited Jupiter being within Mars's current orbit during the formation (end oligarchic; 4.1-3.8Gy) stage then migrates outward due to type II planetary migration. Then Mars can just start with approximately it's current orbit after the encounter

 

When Mars loops around Jupiter it triggers the explosive volcanism. The gravity on the close side drop to net zero, but all the individual particles are still all in "free fall" together. The mass that is thrust up moves via internal pressure (like Enceladus, or any geyser). Thus there is a maximum size. The east-west difference is caused largely by rotation and pressure reduction. Thank you, this is something I will have to explain in depth.

 

The difference in basin depth is curious. If the basin was created by an impact; wouldn't the basin be a uniform depth? The impact melt should settle uniformly (more or less). Seems like that is supporting evidence, (thanks!) but I will need to think about how this scenario explains it more clearly.

 

My math is in several notebooks. I'll compile them for viewing.

 

Thanks again, I don't necessarily expect to convince you but articulate reason for being dubious are refreshing.

 

PS-Erosion has been shown to remove the signs of melting; do you know the paper/text? I'd love to read it. Where did it erode to? up and out of the basin?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Marcus MacGregor

[Mordred]

If the impact comes in at an angle from east to west. The west side is deeper. Not all impacts are perpendicular to the surface

 

Here is some material on the erosion patterns Hellas crater is also included.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachian

 

I wait for the math, take your time

[Marcus MacGregor]

True, this can be seen by throwing a rock at sand for example, but the larger the crater the more melt will be in the crater. This melt will tend to flatten out the bottom.

 

Now a nice site for calculating impact effects is this one: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

 

Using a 400km iron meteor @51km/s and 45 degrees with sedimentary rock, produces a crater close to Hellas size that is completely engulfed by its melt. Feel free to change the parameters.

(I find it fun and interesting to see the different effects.)

 

The bottom gets flattened by impacts orders of magnitude smaller than this. This is the crater being engulfed.

[Robittybob1]

True, this can be seen by throwing a rock at sand for example, but the larger the crater the more melt will be in the crater. This melt will tend to flatten out the bottom.

 

Now a nice site for calculating impact effects is this one: http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

 

Using a 400km iron meteor @51km/s and 45 degrees with sedimentary rock, produces a crater close to Hellas size that is completely engulfed by its melt. Feel free to change the parameters.

(I find it fun and interesting to see the different effects.)

 

The bottom gets flattened by impacts orders of magnitude smaller than this. This is the crater being engulfed.

That is for the Earth being impacted, there will be different parameters for a Martian impact.

[Marcus MacGregor]

true it varies as the sixth root of gearth/gmars so about 10% size difference. Still close enough to give a good feel for it.

 

ie:

D=0.07Cf(ge/g)^1/6(W pa/pt)^1/3.4

Where:

D = Crater Diameter

Cf = Crater Collapse Factor ( this is equal to 1.3 for craters >4km on Earth)

ge = Gravitational Acceleration at the surface of Earth

g = Acceleration at the surface of the body on which the crater is formed

W = Kinetic Energy of the impacting body (in kilotons TNT equivalent)

pa = Density of the impactor (ranging from 1.8g/cm3 for a comet to 7.3g/cm3 for an iron meteorite).

pt = Density of the target rock