Using the heliocentric cratering model to date moons in accepted chronology, may need to be modified.
If impact material has been more recently catastrophically created then the history of Saturn’s moons could be very much younger. Other parent planets also?
The chronology of the moons of Saturn, especially Titan, has been limited by a lack of strong constraints on the cratering rate, low number statistics for small‐N counts of large‐diameter craters, and uncertainty about whether impactors are mostly heliocentric impactors orbiting the Sun or planetocentric impactors orbiting Saturn itself.
Using these updated statistics, I show how the heliocentric cratering model leads to a dramatic increase in relative crater density for Mimas, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus with distance from Saturn. Under this model, the surface age of Titan is probably older than the cratered plains of Mimas—implying a very low erosion rate and minimal endogenic resurfacing on Titan.
Relative Crater Scaling Between the Major Moons of Saturn: Implications for Planetocentric Cratering and the Surface Age of Titan | Samuel W. Bell
Unfortunately Samuel W Bell’s article and dates have to be paid for but …
Not all Saturnian system chronologies have incorrectly assumed …
Any slight Nice change to the models would also change the dating of objects.
Previous chronologies of the Saturn system have assumed that the craters on the moons of Saturn virtually all came from objects orbiting the sun.
Bell said, If the impacts came solely from sun-orbiting objects, the relative cratering rate would be much, much higher the closer the moons are to Saturn. However, the crater densities of the oldest surfaces of Mimas, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus are all relatively similar. It would be too much of a coincidence for the ages of the oldest surfaces on each moon to vary by the exact amounts necessary to produce broadly similar crater densities.
As a result, it seems much likelier that the impactors actually come from objects orbiting Saturn itself, moonlets that would be too small to detect with current technology. There are many important implications of this new chronology, Bell added.
New chronology of the Saturn system | Phys.org
The Bell is rung for Velikovsky inspired New Chronology
Most of the very modified inspired Velikovskian cosmology theories (Thunderbolts, some members of Society for Interdisciplinary Studies etc.) suggest Saturn’s moons are very much younger in age, perhaps some are only a few thousand years old. Other planets also.
“For instance, under the assumption that all the impactors orbit the sun, the possibility that any of the moons are younger than 4 billion years old is ruled out. However, with impactors orbiting Saturn itself, the moons could be younger, as has been suggested from astrometric observations of tidal orbital evolution. The assumption of impactors orbiting the sun results in the conclusion that the surface of Titan is probably at least 4 billion years old, even though Titan shows clear evidence of active weathering,” Bell said.
With the new chronology, Titan could be quite young, which is much more consistent with observations of lakes, riverbeds, dunes, and mountains.
With the new chronology, we can much more accurately quantify what we do and don’t know about the ages of the moons and the features on them, Bell said.
The grand scale history of the Saturn system still hides many mysteries, but it is beginning to come into focus.
New chronology of the Saturn system | Phys.org
Very modified but very slightly verified Velikovsky?
Some catastrophic event debris could perhaps settle into the plasmodial torus of planets plasmaspheres. Some could perhaps escape into different orbits, with other space objects and dusty plasmas near that beloved horizontal line of our current main plasmoid star.
For example the Velikovsky/Ackerman/Gilligan God King Scenario suggested that Egyptian Gods of Hathor the Cow Goddess and Isis were visible debris rings, bands on the ecliptic and equatorial.
How many gods do you need to explain one of the sunniest and driest climates in the world? If Egypt’s pantheon of gods is an attempt to explain the universe and the Egyptians place in it, then why is so alien to us – why can’t we even begin to associate with it?
… the Egyptians were indeed attempting to explain the workings of the cosmos only this wasn’t the same relatively stable world we experienced today, far from it. It was a world dominated by 3,000 years of cosmic chaos (duration of Pharaonic Egypt) primarily involving the planets Mars, Venus, Mercury and the Moon which entered into repeated encounters with earth as divine kings and queens – celestial bodies believed to be the kas (doubles) of humans here on earth.
Moreover, my reconstruction takes the common sense notion that there were no mythical gods whatsoever in ancient times. All of Egypt’s gods did at some point hold real physical presence; all can be attributed to planetary chaos and any phenomena associated with it.
And by this I am referring to asteroids, cometary bodies, dust and gasses, electromagnetic disturbances, lighting bolts, light refraction, shock waves, light apparitions, etc. etc. It is here where we will find the true physical identification for many of Egypt’s so-called mythical gods.
The reason we cannot identify with the ancient world and its enigmatic ‘sky’ gods is because chaos has all but subsided and any phenomena associated with it is no longer extant.
A prime example of a deity that once held true physical presence but has since dissipated is the mothering goddess Hathor. I identify this bovine goddess as the name given to a gigantic cosmic ring of ‘milky’ debris that once orbited around earth’s equatorial regions. An analogy would be Saturn’s rings only much thicker and denser.
Hathor – Earth’s Ring of Debris | God King Scenario
Hathor shown as the Suckling Goddess to the Gods, those planet kings who lived in her home and protection.
These rings of material would have a variation of the Shepherd Moons as objects scooped them up.