Io, The Electrified Moon

Take a good look at the volcano on Jupiter’s moon Io. These images were taken by the New Horizons spacecraft as it swung past the moon back in 2007.




Does the large volcano look like any volcano you’ve ever seen before?

Where’s the ash? Where’s the smoke? Where’s the rivers of lava? Why isn’t the ground under the plume glowing from molten chunks of rock? Where are the pyroclastic flows? Why is the plume made up of filaments instead of clouds? Why is the plume glowing blue?

Of course, NASA has some bull# theoretical reasons for these oddities, such as claiming the plume is blue because of dust in the air. Does it look like there is a dusty haze around the moon to you? Why doesn’t this “dust” discolor our view of the surface?

Io’s “volcanoes” exhibit some other interesting phenomena. They have been observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Each time we come back to snap some pics of Io, the plumes are in a different location.

The plumes are also in the “wrong” locations according to NASA theories about how “tidal forces” from Jupiter liquefy the interior of Io. One NASA scientist notes, “the main thermal emission occurs about 40 degrees eastward of its expected positions.”

There’s also a problem with the amount of heat Io emits. The same NASA article goes on to say:

A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io’s heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the “missing” 40 percent? “We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect,” said Veeder. “We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow.”

There’s also a problem with the amount of heat the “volcanoes” themselves emit. When the space probe Galileo passed by Io, it found the plumes to be so hot that it overloaded the sensors on the spacecraft. The early estimates of heat from the plumes were so high that NASA had to go back and revise their models to make the results match their “theoretical limits.”

That’s quite a few oddities for such a tiny moon. All of these oddities point towards NASA’s theories about Io being fundamentally incorrect.

Scientists are claiming these eruptions are “ultramafic” – a type of eruption that we have never observed first hand. These types of eruptions are purely inferred, the same way dark matter is inferred. They are purely hypothetical, based on chemical compositions of rock we have observed. Of course, it’s possible that some other processes may have created those rocks besides magma from a volcanic eruption.

NASA makes the assumption that the “volcanoes” are actually volcanoes, and that they are spewing molten rock into the air. Perhaps this fundamental assumption is wrong.

Many moons ago, some real scientists saw through the cloud of BS NASA was shoveling onto the public and proposed a simple solution to all of these oddities. They noted that Io was orbiting inside of Jupitier’s magnetosphere. A region of highly energized plasma that surrounds Jupiter. Those scientists concluded that the so-called “volcanoes” of Io may not be volcanoes at all. Instead, they surmised, that the plumes were actually electrical discharges created by the electrical potential of Jupiter’s magnetosphere.

Peratt and Dessler write, “plasma arcs are expected because of the 10^6 A currents and 400 kV potentials generated by the flow past Io of a torus of relatively dense magnetospheric plasma.” Then they went on to compare the plumes to plasma arcs they observed in the laboratory. Here’s what they observed:



Boy, that sure looks like the plumes on Io, hey? Guess what color they are.

What’s also interesting about Peratt and Dessler’s findings is that they are able to explain why the plumes change location and why they are located where they are on Io’s surface. They can explain the heat issues. They can explain the filaments. They can pretty much explain away all the inconsistencies that arise from the current NASA theories about Io.

So why are scientists still scratching their heads?

Probably because they absolutely refuse to violate the first tenant of standard cosmology dogma – thou shalt never mention electricity in space. Especially when it comes to the electrical excavation of planetary surfaces.

Io is being electrically machined as we speak. It’s happening right now. The surface of Io is being carved up by enormous plasma discharges. This observation changes everything we think we know about the creation of mountains, canyons, and other geological surface features on all planetary bodies.

With this information in mind, sit back and enjoy a real scientific explanation for what happened to the surface of Mars:

Looks like it is trying to start an atmosphere of some sort.

Well, I had to say something.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Where's the lava?

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: AlphaHawk

From your article:

"The molten lava was hot enough, and therefore bright enough, to saturate, or overexpose, Galileo's camera (original image is inset in lower right corner)...The bright lava curtain (a chain of lava fountains) and surface flows shown in the color image were assembled as an interpretive drawing by Galileo scientists "

An artist painted in the lava.

Thanks for the link though. I was digging around for proof that Galileo's camera was blown out by the heat and light emitted. I knew it had happened, I just couldn't find a link to prove it.

Lava on earth does not get to be so bright it blows out your camera; however, an arc welder will.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Nailed the dismount. Nice OP.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

You state that lava on this planet does not reach high enough temperatures to burn out or overload the sorts of sensor which were attached to the Galileo spacecraft. You are of course correct, but what you must understand is that the temperature of our planets lava is a result of a combination of the precise chemical make up of the material itself, and the distance between the Sun, and our planet, and therefore the amount of gravity exerted upon our planet.

However, Io is effected by much greater stresses, as a result of its proximity to Jupiter, which is the second most massive object in our solar system, after the sun. Now, Jupiter is much smaller than the Sun, but Io gets VERY close to it, and it changes shape DRASTICALLY, over a very small amount of time!

You cannot compare lava on our planet with lava on Io, because they exist in a totally different set of circumstances. Hell, even ice and water are intrinsically different, AND THEY ARE MADE OF THE SAME STUFF! So you can see from that example, with relative ease, that comparing two things, even two very similar things, but in DRASTICALLY different circumstances is a folly. If you build a diving board in the North Pole, and think that just because H20 is the same everywhere, you will be fine when you reach the bottom, you will STILL be pulverised on contact with the thick ice there!

For crying out loud!

a reply to: TrueBrit

I thought I made it pretty clear that there is no volcanic lava on Io. They are observing an electric discharge. The focus of which is far hotter than any volcanic theory will allow for. It's like a gigantic arc welder blasting away at the surface.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist the plume is blue due to the combination of dust particles and the composite colorized image which is used to highlight details which maybe wouldn't be seen for example like in this mono image , photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov... or this one photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...
more up to date info on io here, www.sciencedirect.com... www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: suicideeddie

Yes, I'm aware of the claim that the glowing plasma sheath is supposedly dust.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

You have not made anything clear at all.

What you have done, is posited a theory based on your assumption that no volcanic process can account for the heat signatures being expressed by Io during its more active phases. However, there is no reason to support your assumption, based on what you have said so far.

For a start, your conclusions about the nature of the plumes on Io is based on faulty logic, and ignores the fact that Io itself has weak gravity. Jupiter of course has no such problem, but the lazy arc in which matter returns to the surface of Io after one of these eruptions, is caused by the fact that there is so little gravity acting on the matter which has been ejected. This is not only a much more plausible explanation for the shape of the plumes, but one which fits the information we already have about Io.

What information am I referring to? Well, the reams and reams of image data which show the fallen debris, changing the colour and form of the landscape for one. When gas or matter is ejected from a volcano on Io, the material makes its way back to the surface, creating vast areas of scattered soot and sulphur, all around the eruption site.

This theory you have come up with, does not account for any of the physical processes we see at work on the surface of Io, not one. Where as, the volcanic eruptions of matter and gas concept, goes a hell of a long way to explaining why the face of Io changes faster than that of Robin Williams in Mrs Doubtfire, and links into the gravitational aspect, being caused as it is, by the combination of Io having weak gravity, but being kneaded like a squash ball by the close proximity of Jupiter.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yeah, there's "just no reason" to for me to make these absolutely absurd claims.

What was I thinking?

Oh by the way, I didn't come up with this theory. A couple of guys with PhDs that worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory did.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Sooooo we get a colour composed image and you claim an artist drew in the red lava... and you look at another colour composed image that shows a blue plume and... nope no false colour there!

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Sooooo we get a colour composed image and you claim an artist drew in the red lava... and you look at another colour composed image that shows a blue plume and... nope no false colour there!

Here's a full set

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

and another full color image:

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

The New Horizons Multicolor Visible Imaging Camera (MVIC) took this image of Jupiter's volcanic moon Io at 04:30 Universal Time on February 28, 2007, about one hour before New Horizons' closest approach to Jupiter, from a range of 2.7 million kilometers...the colors approximate what the human eye would see in daylight illumination.

Looks blue to me!

Even NASA agrees it's blue

The right panel shows the bluish color of the plume from Tvashtar

The difference between the artist rendering and the color image taken by New Horizons should be obvious. In the instance of the NH photo, real wavelengths of light are used to get the approximate color. In the Galileo image, the original was in black and white, and the area being artistically drawn was completely white-out, which means it was a purely speculative artistic rendering of something they couldn't see at all.

Interesting, do you see how over exposed the surface of Io is? The surface is blasted out, but the plume is very faint... doesn't seem to bode well for the arc flash massive amounts of light production does it.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Interesting, do you see how over exposed the surface of Io is? The surface is blasted out, but the plume is very faint... doesn't seem to bode well for the arc flash massive amounts of light production does it.

The plume is faint, but clearly much brighter than the area in shadows. It's definitely generating its own light. However, the point source where the plasma focus is taking place is blazing.

The black and white images show the plume in shadow much more clearly

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yeah, there's "just no reason" to for me to make these absolutely absurd claims.

What was I thinking?

Oh by the way, I didn't come up with this theory. A couple of guys with PhDs that worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory did.

Keep in mind an entire fleet of scientists with PhDs that work for NASA, and elsewhere around the world, came up with the standing theory..

I'm not offering an opinion on the topic, which I find very interesting - just saying that this particular argument is invalid considering you want to discount many more than two PhDs..

a reply to: TinkerHaus

Yeah, I'm just looking at the evidence.

What's clear from Peratt and Dessler's findings is that plasma is expected to be arcing on the surface. This point is indisputable given our knowledge of the plasma environment the moon is orbiting in.

So the question then becomes, where are the arcs?

Even if we assume those things are volcanoes, we should still see arcing occurring.

The obvious answer is the plumes ARE the arcing that is expected.

Oh, here's the final proof that these plumes are self-generating light.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

There can be no question those plumes are emitting light, as is the ENTIRE moon.

The entire moon is lit up in a auroral glow.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Why is the plume glowing blue?

Oops sorry that's my fault. I was there having lunch with Jupiter and I got a little flatulent, and, well, I'm blue. I'm really embarrased so let's not make a big deal about it.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Good read, I will have to watch the video later. Thanks for sharing!