That is a very old crater and you can see where the Martian breeze has blown the dust/sand away from the breaks in the crater wall.
Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
That is a very old crater and you can see where the Martian breeze has blown the dust/sand away from the breaks in the crater wall.
How perfect is your outer annulus?
It's the lack of divot/oval shaped impacts that do makes for some damn good pondering.
So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
Einstein
Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem].
I've learned a few things about craters over the years.
It's the lack of divot/oval shaped impacts that do makes for some damn good pondering.
So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
Einstein
Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem].
I've learned a few things about craters over the years.
Last edited:
It seems entirely reasonable to me that round craters on revolving bodies would be the result of perpendicular forces.
In my understanding there is no evidence for age or breeze. However I understand charge can transport and deposit millions of tons of material in a day on the surface of Mars where dust storms sometimes cover entire hemispheres.
The Peekskill Meteor
I was always confused about meteors until I considered electrical theories, which I think explains them very well. A long time ago in Dartmouth NS I witnessed a meteorite up close over head and I heard the same sound described in the linked article it was also glowing green and sputtering and sparking orange and or red.
E-Wind
Last edited:
Yes, that's entirely reasonable as stated, but they need not be perpendicular. An impact at almost any angle will create a round crater.
Curious About Astronomy: Why are craters round?
Why are impact craters always round? Most incoming objects must strike at some angle from vertical, so why don't the majority of impact sites have elongated, teardrop shapes? : Scientific American
There are plenty of tear drop shaped and plenty of round ones.
Does that make all round ones impact craters though?
What about the scarring?
Does that make all round ones impact craters though?
What about the scarring?
You need to be more specific, I don't understand what your second question refers to. As for the first one, I've never heard of any crater that isn't due to impact, except for certain volcanic features like calderas. The Beave's interplanetary lightning bolts aren't on, they didn't happen.
How could anyone tell if there was a crater made by a lightning bolt? What would it look like?
If you need "without any doubt" then revelation is what you need, not science. However, as a geologist you certainly ought to be familiar with the diagnostic features of impacts, like shatter cones, planar quartz, stuff like that, as well as the structural deformations. And I'm sure you know what fulgurite is too, or can readily look it up.
First of all I highly doubt an interplanetary exchange of energy wouldn't be your typical rain storm bolt of lightning. What would you find in a electric crater Vs impact? First of all scale. Just like blasting ball bearings into sand (even at angle) a typical earth based bolt is on scale. You will find quartz shattering and sphericals, tectite glasses and fracturing which are from the intense heat.
What do electric discharges look like in sand if we go at scale like the impact tests?
Here is an electric arcing crater in steel at scale.
Even has the center cone.
At scale there are many similarities.
These are meteor impacts at scale in sand.
Poke around a little. I'm a uniformitarian but I'm not going to dismiss other theories. Our knowledge base of the planet is still in infancy. As long as someone is looking and not resting on their asses then science will progress and teach us a few more things.
It would be round.
This perspective view of two large craters south of Coprates Catena in Valles Marineris exaggerates depth in
order to give a clear impression of the “crater within a crater.” Credit: Photo courtesy of Michael Gmirkin and
NASA’s World Wind 3D visualization software.
May 23, 2007
Bull's-Eye Craters
Impacts that "hit the bull’s eye" of a previous impact are "high-odds" improbable. But lightning—even planet-scale lightning—can strike twice in the same spot.
One of the principal claims of the Electric Universe model is that many features on the surfaces of rocky bodies are scars left by electrical activity. A crater is produced when an electrical arc, consisting of two or more Birkeland currents rotating around a central axis, “sticks” to one location and “drills out” a circular depression.
Because electrical forces constrain an arc to strike a surface at a right angle, the crater will tend to be circular. Because the forces are distributed cylindrically, the crater will tend to have steep sides and a flat floor. Electrical forces lift debris from the surface, leaving no rim or a rim of “pinched-up” material. The properties of flat floor, steep edge, and removal of debris are why electrical etching has been developed into the industrial process of electrical discharge machining (EDM).
If the rotating currents do not touch at the central axis, they will leave a “peak” of undisturbed material. A sudden change in current or in current density, due to pinching forces in the arc or to the influx of charge-carrying debris, may cause the arc to “shrink” to a smaller diameter, leaving a terrace around the wall. Because the arc is maintained for an appreciable time by a continuous electrical current, melting of surface materials may be extensive.
In contradistinction, craters formed by mechanical impact tend to have rounded floors and rims. Because the forces are distributed spherically, debris is thrown out of the crater ballistically and deposited radially in a gradation of fineness and volume. The energy of the impact is dissipated in shock displacement of material: solids will “flow” as if liquefied and suddenly “freeze” when the impulsive force drops below a threshold. Very little melting occurs.
Careful inspection of rocky-body craters discloses their conformity with EDM.
The two craters in the above image are a variation on the EDM theme. They display the typical flat floors, steep sides, and pinched-up rims. They have terraces around their walls. But instead of central peaks, they have central craters. Two more craters that are similar lie to the southwest.
Our colleague MichCratershttp://www.electricyouniverse.com/eye/index.php?level=picture&id=958
Multiple Carolina Bays (Bladen County, North Carolina, USA) - Craters caused by EDM / spark eroding/maching?
Craters on Planets and Moons
For the Electric universe, the cosmic thunderbolt is the mechanism of cratering on the planets and the moons of our solar system. Cosmic lightning is not the small-scale discharge of an ordinary thunderstorm, but the heaven-spanning weapons of the gods celebrated by every human culture. And the craters themselves are the wounds inflicted by these cosmic weapons. This cratering mechanism explains not only the glass beads and brecciated rocks, but many other features which fit poorly into the impact explanation, such as flat bottoms, terraced walls, central peaks and secondary craters centered on the rims of larger craters. All of these typical lightning features are seen in the above photo of craters on Mercury.
I am a former uniformist but things moves along faster than that. Apparently if you want to excellerate evolution you just add more current. Everything evolves in fields especially organics. Wild field strengths are variable, stable rates of evolution are unlikely. I had some nice cannabis this evening.
Those are kettle holes.
Carolina kettle holes? As a world renowned famous well hung geologist would you hazard a guess about them please?
Karst not glacial.Carolina kettle holes? As a world renowned famous well hung geologist would you hazard a guess about them please?
http://www.jeffreycreid.com/Reid%20-%20SinkholeSEGSAknoxville.pdf
Unless you can arrange for the ball bearings to vaporize on contact, that's not a good model of a meteorite impact. It doesn't scale up. Electric arcs etching steel aren't a good model for the explanation DB offered for crater formation either, they're not rotating Birkeland currents so neither does that model scale up. The electric cosmos model is based on a lot of arguments like "if it looks like X, it must be X," so its promoters look at the dendritic pattern an electric arc produces in a plastic block in the laboratory, note that it resembles an aerial photograph of the Colorado River drainage pattern, and conclude the canyons were created by an electrical discharge. That's not good thinking. And it's all qualitative. You can't do good physics qualitatively. In fact you can't do physics qualitatively at all, you can only talk about it. And that's all they do. They don't do a proper analysis, most of them don't know how, and the only one I've ever encountered who can, Donald Scott, gets a lot of pretty basic physics wrong.
USGS is very happy with their ball bearing impacts for modelling and are used to corellate to lunar and Geo impacts, Grand canyon formation is still under debate. Some say was it uniform slow steady flow of the Colorado and tributaries other rapid. Some claim it flowed north but then an ice dam released mass water and it ran south since.
Tunguska event is certainly in contention for a high intensity plasma discharge just as easily a meteorite or a smalll exploding comet,
We can't physically see or electronically monitor all forms of known energy let alone energy potentials from dark matter or the potential for a planet to store energy like a capacitor an dump it rapidly on a passing body.
The ancient people recorded what they saw with petroglyph's depicting same events from one end of the globe to the other. Their sky was much different than ours if they could see that planets and comets in great detail or even witnessed the demise of the planet that now makes up the asteroid belt. They weren't stupid people. They had the same thinking capacity you and I do but not the knowledge so the left what they could and it tells us plenty if you are willing to accept it.
When you are trained one way and one way only, you think in one way and one way only. I never slapped down $75K to be trained to think like someone else.
If it weren't for those thinking outside the box, progress would grind to a halt. I have respect for those who dare crossed the lines laid out by sanctioning bodies and cheque signers.
Sheltered men and women leading sheltered lives being lead on a leash by corporate sponsored chairs and fed really hard to reach carrots makes for horrible science.
If it weren't for those thinking outside the box, progress would grind to a halt. I have respect for those who dare crossed the lines laid out by sanctioning bodies and cheque signers.
Sheltered men and women leading sheltered lives being lead on a leash by corporate sponsored chairs and fed really hard to reach carrots makes for horrible science.
I gave you that link a long time ago, but I was pretty sure you wouldn't read it. It's a review of his book The Electric Sky by a legitimate astrophysicist. Among the mistakes Scott makes is to state, on the basis of no evidence at all, that the laws of physics are different in the distant cosmos than they are here on Earth, that anything that hasn't been tested in the lab or in situ can't be real, that astrophysical claims can't be tested, he confuses mathematical logic with philosophical logic, he distrusts the mathematical models that are the only basis for generating numerical predictions for testing hypotheses, relies heavily on the "if it looks like X it must be X" fallacy--he was the one who claimed the Grand Canyon is a Lichtenberg figure--, he seems to know nothing of quantum mechanics and fails to realize that the quantum mechanics that explains the spectra and energy source of stars is the same quantum mechanics that enables modern microelectronics. He must think we do the latter by magic.
There are portions of our own galaxy that are gaseous (plasma?) and birthing new stars which involves one helluva lot of fusion and physic that we can't repoduce on earth in a lab.
Our own star works on fusion and it's electromagnetic range stretches out past Pluto. Does the sun ever discharge plasma at our earth because it's going through magnetic flip and loses dipole causing the sun to go into having multiple poles causing overload mayhem to our electrical grid or telecomm?
Even railroads get juiced up on from them excess plasma overloading the earth's own electric dynamo that produces our magnetic field. All those electrons on the loose make for some pretty displays as they stimulate the gases of our atmosphere as well.
How would a solar system exist if a star had no electromagnetism extending out along the ecliptic plane?
Our own star works on fusion and it's electromagnetic range stretches out past Pluto. Does the sun ever discharge plasma at our earth because it's going through magnetic flip and loses dipole causing the sun to go into having multiple poles causing overload mayhem to our electrical grid or telecomm?
Even railroads get juiced up on from them excess plasma overloading the earth's own electric dynamo that produces our magnetic field. All those electrons on the loose make for some pretty displays as they stimulate the gases of our atmosphere as well.
How would a solar system exist if a star had no electromagnetism extending out along the ecliptic plane?
Last edited: