Ceres!

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Rossim » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:12 am

D_Archer wrote:The electrical interactions make the crater, it widens over time, always discharging/eroding at the rim.

So we do not need any interacting bolide to create crater features at all (my conclusion).

Regards,
Daniel


I was leaning more towards magnetic sculpting as the discharge is occurring in the center, all being produced at the same time. I'd like to know the ratio of the diameter of the pentagon crater to the diameter of ceres and compare that ratio to other small bodies with large craters like Mimas.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:04 pm

viscount aero wrote:
Yes I see it. Very cool. How could an impact have made that? [rhetorical question]


willendure wrote:Apparently, due to cracks in the surface that pre-date the impact. Since a weakness exists along those fault lines, the crater rim tends to end up there instead of being round like we would expect from an impact. Amazingly, the fault lines just ended up dividing the surface into convenient hexagonal zones all ready to be impacted into hexagonal craters. Who would have thought it?

:?: So you DO think they are impact craters? Explain further. I don't quite follow your assumptions about fault lines and "hexagonal zones." What do you mean?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:41 pm

viscount aero wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Yes I see it. Very cool. How could an impact have made that? [rhetorical question]


willendure wrote:Apparently, due to cracks in the surface that pre-date the impact. Since a weakness exists along those fault lines, the crater rim tends to end up there instead of being round like we would expect from an impact. Amazingly, the fault lines just ended up dividing the surface into convenient hexagonal zones all ready to be impacted into hexagonal craters. Who would have thought it?

:?: So you DO think they are impact craters? Explain further. I don't quite follow your assumptions about fault lines and "hexagonal zones." What do you mean?


I was being facetious; this explanation has been used to try and explain away hexagonal craters. Have a look at this article:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-la ... ology.html

"On Rhea and Dione, we think that the non-roundness of the craters is caused by the existence of fractures in the crust; those fractures were zones of weakness, and the rupturing of the impact crater followed those weaknesses, making straight rim segments."

But six straight line rim segments in a neat hexagon? And repeated over and again on different moons, asteroids, planets? Occam's Razor moves that hypothesis very far down the list.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:47 pm

Image

Here is the Herschel Crater on Mimas, an absolute beauty, I love how it looks like the death star.

Flat, hexagonal with a central peak.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:26 pm

willendure wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Yes I see it. Very cool. How could an impact have made that? [rhetorical question]


willendure wrote:Apparently, due to cracks in the surface that pre-date the impact. Since a weakness exists along those fault lines, the crater rim tends to end up there instead of being round like we would expect from an impact. Amazingly, the fault lines just ended up dividing the surface into convenient hexagonal zones all ready to be impacted into hexagonal craters. Who would have thought it?

:?: So you DO think they are impact craters? Explain further. I don't quite follow your assumptions about fault lines and "hexagonal zones." What do you mean?


I was being facetious; this explanation has been used to try and explain away hexagonal craters. Have a look at this article:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-la ... ology.html

"On Rhea and Dione, we think that the non-roundness of the craters is caused by the existence of fractures in the crust; those fractures were zones of weakness, and the rupturing of the impact crater followed those weaknesses, making straight rim segments."

But six straight line rim segments in a neat hexagon? And repeated over and again on different moons, asteroids, planets? Occam's Razor moves that hypothesis very far down the list.


LOL sorry :lol: I agree with you, mate.

I didn't understand your tone or what you said because it was so ridiculous :lol: :lol: Yes the establishment's idea is highly unbelievable and ridiculous.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

bright lights on ceres!

Unread postby ThunderIdeal » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:39 am

User avatar
ThunderIdeal
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: bright lights on ceres!

Unread postby ThunderIdeal » Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:45 am

Mods please delete as i am two days slower than somebody else
User avatar
ThunderIdeal
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:36 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:02 am

This article is extremely presumptuous and reaching in its conclusions about Ceres' craters and bright spots. The article mysteriously avoids mentioning the hexagonal craters, avoiding that language:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-la ... ology.html
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Guildor » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:22 pm

Come on people!
I'm not the only one to notice the light spots that flicker - and slap bang in the middle of a "crater".
So what I think we're witnessing here, is the creation of a "bullseye" crater, by electrical machining.
I'm looking forwards to the next few weeks, as new images will likely show that the "ice" has stopped reflecting in that crater, because the planetoid rotated!
Anyway, another point, just looking at the observation, I don't believe it's reflection at all. Would reflection appear to brighten the area in which it's happening, like light being dispersed? That's what it looks like to me. So the whole area of the white spots appear to glow slightly, which does suggest a light phenomena. ie, an electrical arc.
Guildor
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:15 pm

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby paladin17 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:42 am

Rossim wrote:
paladin17 wrote:What's your thoughts on this, anyone?

What observations of Ceres do you think would differentiate the EU view from the standard model?

The craziest one would be if those bright spots would continue to shine even on the dark side of Ceres. Dawn would see the dark side at least to some extent, so we should have the opportunity to observe it.
That would certainly kick out the "ice patch" version and give a thousand points to the EDM hypothesis.

Geometrical considerations also should matter (could the sunlight be reflected in the way it supposedly does here).

And we should pay attention to the spectrum of these spots. EDM should produce more energetic UV and X-rays (I'm not a specialist in this area, but I think so) than simple solar rays reflection from icy surface. Well, anyway the spectrum should be different.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Bomb20 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:09 am

I would not bet all my money on arc discharge. Remember that NASA found Argon and Helium gas related to some of the transient lunar phenomenon. This is rather a reminder to a Geissler tube (Geißlersche Röhre):
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Geissler_tubes_(switched_on).jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissler_tube&h=2378&w=2250&tbnid=DMpspa_D-9k1dM:&zoom=1&tbnh=107&tbnw=101&usg=__BNKkmyybg-YQu_Iow6rLFMSJSAo=&docid=kT5xK77SiCrX7M&sa=X&ei=QDT0VJG5PMbvO8SDgYAF&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAA

and I wonder if the celestial body is emitting gas and the latter becomes ionized under the influence of electric currents and is causing a glow discharge.

I think we should keep in mind all electric opportunities and not only the most spectacular.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:09 am

Bomb20 wrote:I would not bet all my money on arc discharge. Remember that NASA found Argon and Helium gas related to some of the transient lunar phenomenon. This is rather a reminder to a Geissler tube (Geißlersche Röhre):
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Geissler_tubes_(switched_on).jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissler_tube&h=2378&w=2250&tbnid=DMpspa_D-9k1dM:&zoom=1&tbnh=107&tbnw=101&usg=__BNKkmyybg-YQu_Iow6rLFMSJSAo=&docid=kT5xK77SiCrX7M&sa=X&ei=QDT0VJG5PMbvO8SDgYAF&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAA

and I wonder if the celestial body is emitting gas and the latter becomes ionized under the influence of electric currents and is causing a glow discharge.

I think we should keep in mind all electric opportunities and not only the most spectacular.


Yes.

Until there are closer photos of the region we cannot know with better clarity what the white spots may be. I'm apt to believe that even with closeup shots of the area the "actual" reason for their existence will be interpreted through the lens of whatever belief system is interpreting them. Again notice how the hexagonal craters are being ignored by the establishment. They stop short of admitting a hexagonal geometry exists in press releases I've thus far seen. The establishment cannot broach or utter "hexagon" for craters, some giant, because that would open up a big discussion about the veracity of impact-only cratering which is what they require in all cases.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby Metryq » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:18 am

viscount aero wrote:The establishment cannot broach or utter "hexagon" for craters

...because it would impact their arguments? Perhaps even short circuit them?

Maybe the flashes are the methane from pingos exploding due to global warming? A stranded ET signaling for help?

Oh, sorry, wrong forum.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:28 am

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:The establishment cannot broach or utter "hexagon" for craters

...because it would impact their arguments? Perhaps even short circuit them?

Maybe the flashes are the methane from pingos exploding due to global warming? A stranded ET signaling for help?

Oh, sorry, wrong forum.

Yes :)

They attribute the "straight sides" of the craters (again avoiding saying that they are geometrically hexagonal) to "crustal fracturing" upon impact--which explains nothing because that then leads to the question again: if an impactor did happen to land upon a region of crust that "fractured" then how did the fracture assume a perfectly geometrically hexagonal shape across many impact sites over much of the planetary surface? In other words, how can multiple sites of impacts fracture perfectly hexagonally? The consistency of the forms is too frequent and perfect to explain it away using a random "crustal fracturing" idea.

Explain to me, then, the geology underpinning this perfect geometry of hexagonal fracturing. To their credit they do mention the remarkably shallow and flat floors of the craters. But that is where their curiosity seems to stop. They remain fixated on the "impact events" that formed them.

In the case of Saturn, they can explain away the polar hexagon with fluid dynamics. But with hard rock they cannot. Instead of venturing to see a possible common thread, they avoid it. So they created even more unlikely assumptions by avoiding the original issue. This mode of avoidance is exactly what establishment cosmology does with regularity. If an observation falsifies a theory then the observation is explained away as anomalous and baffling and then the tribe just moves on past it, continuing to believe the falsified theory. Hexagonal cratering a gigantic point of discussion that holds tremendous weight. But the establishment whispers past it.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Ceres!

Unread postby nick c » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:27 am

The Dawn probe should be arriving at Ceres in a few days. This is going to be very interesting.
Something that has been kind of hinted at in this discussion but not directly addressed is - why is Ceres not a cold, dead, inactive mini world?
This same question has been asked about moons of the giant planets, but mainstream attributes their activity to tidal forces. There is no large planetary body near Ceres, so why is it active if it has been in this distant position (from the Sun) for billions of years.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest