Charles, I think the most science can be accomplished with a combination of organized and disorganized efforts. Organized efforts follow clear goals and disorganized ones follow unclear goals. The purpose of science is to gain understanding and control of nature for the benefit of all of humanity. I think some of the most valuable science that we could do is to help acquire enough knowledge to accurately predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, dangerous solar events and dangerous extra-solar events etc. Also, I think it's worth obtaining knowledge that helps people to explore and colonize other planetoids. I'd also like to learn how humans can live in peace, freedom and prosperity anywhere.
- Is your website ready for forum work there where we could experiment with accumulating knowledge more efficiently and improving scientific method by using processes similar to sociocracy etc? I think something that would improve a forum is to allow members to insert a second message immediately before their original posts, which they could edit at any time, whereas the original posts would not be editable, except by staff. And you said you were working on making it easy to cross-reference topics, so that may be another improvement. By the way, I think Brian Robertson started a small software company in PA which uses something like sociocracy.
Electrostatic Shockwaves
Wow! That's quite a theory, Charles. Now that you explained it, it sounds like a foregone conclusion or a sure thing, not just theory. In fact, it seems odd if no one else has thought of it. You'd better copyright it. Boats make little bow shockwaves on water. I wonder if that could be electrostatic as well. Even a stick sticking up out of a stream makes a little bow shock on the upstream side. Here's a bullet in water shockwave: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/im ... -shock.jpg. And then there are many shockwaves that conventional astronomers credit for causing all kinds of events in space. It would be ironic if those are electrostatic too, since they apparently use the term shockwave in order to divert attention away from possible EM forces. I think you've probably made another important finding here. Your discussion of the Irkutsk meteor sounds right on too. We discussed it a few years ago at this thread: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 105#p26451.
- I'm spreading the word a little. At this thread, http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 447#p76447, I said: Charles Chandler Explains Crater Formation
- See: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 120#p76424.
- He said regarding the Mars video that he found "the instances of scalloping, and the crater chains, to be intriguing" evidence for EDM. He thinks craters can also form by bolide impacts that produce thermonuclear explosions, because both of the requirements for such explosions seem to be present, namely large momentum to smash atoms apart and high pressure to confine them and allow fusion. And he thinks bolides can also explode in the air as airbursts, due to the ionosphere stripping off electrons, which form the shockwaves in front of meteors. As the electrons are pulled out of the meteor, the bolide becomes positively charged and the molecules increasingly repel each other, which will cause an explosion in air, if the bolide is small enough.
- So did I say that right? Do the electrons stay up in front of the bolide in the shockwave? Oh, it looks like you're saying that the shockwaves are positive charge, which does seem to make more sense. Do sonic booms make more sense by your theory too than by conventional theory?
- I also quoted your explanation of how bolide impact craters can retain central peaks. But I just remembered another peculiarity of some craters. Namely, some have bullseye craters within the craters, either in place of the central peaks, or on top of the central peaks. Would those also be explained by your bolide thermonuclear explosion theory?
Cook's Theory on the North American Catastrophe
Your theory would certainly seem to explain meteor airbursts etc. If high velocity motion through an atmosphere pulls electrons out of bolides, leaving them with repulsive charges, it's easy to see that they'd tend to explode quickly. That explains how meteors etc could be turned to sand and dust. Cook theorized that an object much larger than a meteor or asteroid must have caused the devastation of North America nearly 10,000 years ago. He didn't suggest that the entire biosphere was wiped out, just that of North America, which continent must have been facing the planet whose plasmasphere upon contact with Earth's apparently caused the shockwave that caused the devastation.
Upside-down Shattercones
Do you mean you consider a traveling underground electric current blast to be unlikely? It seems to me that a huge lightning strike might become an underground blast. Do you think not? A powerful bolide impact should be able to produce lightning. Right? Especially, if there is an ion trail behind it shorting out the ionosphere. If the strata were overturned or something, I don't imagine the crater would have been found or recognized.You said:This might also be evidence of an impact where later crustal deformation due to tectonic forces rearranged everything after the fact.Lloyd wrote: Shatter Cones: Impact crater shatter cones should point upwards to point of impact. Vredefort Dome, South Africa, shatter cones point downwards and to different points of origin, evidence of traveling underground blast, like from rotating Birkeland current.