Help Us Explain Crater Formation!

[willendure]

more material
was seen to be displaced by dark-mode tendrils (electric wind) than what was
moved by an arc... So invisible tendrils may be a primary factor to entertain.

Would an arc mode discharge even be needed at all? Is possible that polygonal craters could be eroded without the violent event of arcing even occurring, and instead be a longer and slower process carried out by a steady stream of plasma, with a multi-filament and close-packed structure as described by EofE?

I'm curious now to look at images of the 'volcanoes' on Io, which seem to be some of the best examples of steady plasma flow resulting in activity on a surface, but there is no arc-mode lightning bolt coming from Saturn.

[dahlenaz]

I agree that the overlay is not convincing.

Personally, I would say that it's a pretty far from convincing overlay, but I didn't expect anything better considering the thin layer of apparently loose material you used in your experiment. Unfortunately, unlike yourself, I do not possess or have access to the equipment needed to test my hypothesis on a laboratory scale; so there is nothing I can do to convince you of any part of it.

As I see it, you can either choose - on the basis of one result from a poorly designed experiment - to dismiss my hypothesis completely; or, as a scientist, to take a more investigative approach and see if you can prove/disprove it, on a laboratory scale. I stand by my hypothesis, can you stand by your dismissal? I don't believe there's anything else I can suggest, so I'll leave it with you.

From the experiments of James St. Pe we have the
following example of experimental-crater formation in thin material and under home-lab power levels...


Larger image

I find his to be far better examples and more "convincing of scalability"
than the craters i offered for examination. That material was very resistive and the discharge
was weak. i was surprised that something was seen. If examples are present at this scale,,
does that help or hurt your proposal?

I would suspect that z-pinch levels of discharge were not reached in James' ionizer experiment
but i may be wrong in that thought. But there may have been something similar occurring
as filaments (tendrils) are drawn together for a focused arc... How they behave as they are
drawn inward may account for another feature seen in craters, the radial scars, suggested as
being caused by a scooping action exerted by a discharge..
You mentioned that before a pinch is formed there are filaments arranged loosely prior
to the surge that compresses the filaments together. (Fig. 1 of you paper).
So doesn't this open the possibility of a process that operates outside of your primary parameter
of a sustained arc?

This video of hexagonal grouping of filaments in a plasma ball as it
is brought near to an electro-magnetic field shows tendrils maintaining an hexagonal orientation.
The diffused sides of a pinch may be more involved than the pinch itself, in certain instances,
and as a result we have variations in crater characteristics... Or so it seems to this backyard experimenter.

Home experiments are very easy and you sell yourself short by thinking that you need an
elaborate laboratory to test some aspects of your hypothesis. .. d..z

...

[dahlenaz]

This feature was made in electrically-mobile material
and without an arc.
Two very clear straight edges and an associated angle
can be seen in the deeper material, at right side.
A third edge is less pronounced and across from the 1:00 position.



More images

d..z

...

[willendure]

It is widely accepted that many planets and moons exhibit a hemisphere dichotomy. Mars north/south hemispheres, our own moon, the earth (pacific ocean on one side), mercury, many moons of Saturn and Jupiter...

The 'thunderbolts' hypothesis is that the hemisphere difference was created as part of a catastrophic event. Two bodies come close, exchange a huge lightning interaction, and go their way each with one hemisphere deeply eroded, and the other relatively unscathed.

Another hypothesis is the ejection model. If planets are ejected from a sun or gaseous body such as Jupiter, during the ejection the side facing the parent could undergo a similar 'thunderbolt' exchange.

Whilst many argue that catastrophic events of this sort have happened in recent times, by which I mean of the order of thousands of years, I am not so convinced that these more recent events can be responsible for creating the overall hemisphere dichotomy that we observe.

For example, if the Pangaea model of earths history is correct, then all the land started out at one side of the earth, and the other side was all ocean. One side of earth was raised, and the other side deeply excavated, relative to a perfectly round form. The earth existed in this state a long time ago, ruling out recent catastrophe as an explanation for it taking this form.

So what about the ejection hypothesis? I'm interested, what other causes could there be for hemisphere dichotomy?

I am very intrigued by the equatorial ridge seen on Iapetus. Having recently read about Langmuir Sheaths, you can't help but wonder if this ridge was caused by such an effect as a plasma flowed around and acted upon this moon. Could it be that all planets and moons were formed in a z-pinch? Where an intense flow of plasma acted to bring the material to form them together, and was also responsible for creating each hemisphere differently, above and below the center-line of the pinch?

[scowie]

I am fairly convinced the Pangaea model is not correct. The continents were not together on one side of the earth, they were together on a smaller radius earth and split apart as the earth grew. The various ocean basins grew at different times and at different rates and that's why the Pacific Ocean is the biggest — it is effectively earth's first and biggest "tear" (as in rip). Earth has unevenly burst at the seams. The earth is also a bit top-heavy as far as land is concerned because the southern ocean has been growing with all the continents getting pushed away from Antarctica. There's a good video about this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om9H0Qv0LSU

As for why the earth would grow in the south more than the north, I would guess it has something to do with the earths magnetic field drawing in different amounts and varieties of solar wind ions around the south pole as compared to the north.

[moses]

A moon often points the one side at the main body all the time. If conditions are highly electric then that side will likely suffer a lot more erosion that the side facing away from the main body.

And that has got to be the most likely explanation.
Cheers,
Mo

[willendure]

As I say, the hemisphere dichotomy has been noted on many bodies, not just the Earth, so arguing against the Pangaea does not argue against the general observation that it is a phenomenon found throughout the solar system. Bodies with different hemispheres include:

The moon
Earth
Mercury
Mars
Iapetus
Mimas

and possibly more.

I don't think it is true that in the case of moons that one hemisphere always faces the host planet. It would be worth compiling a table of the orientations of the different hemispheres. For example, is it always the case that they are aligned to the poles, that is, a north/south difference?

[D_Archer]

A moon often points the one side at the main body all the time. If conditions are highly electric then that side will likely suffer a lot more erosion that the side facing away from the main body.

And that has got to be the most likely explanation.
Cheers,
Mo

Yes, indeed, our moon is evidence of that, but it does not explain north/south dichotomy.

I would say that the north/south energy input is not equal in our solar system, this would setup a N/S difference in charge, which would setup an E-Field, which would erode 1 hemisphere more and deposit at the other more.

Regards,
Daniel

[moses]

<For example, is it always the case that they are aligned to the poles, that is, a north/south difference? willendure >

Mars is the best example and the Mars border between the thin side and the thicker side is at an angle to the Mars equator. It is simply evidence that the planets and moons were in very different orbits probably not so long ago.

Dan, these dichotomies were set up under much higher electrical conditions with the planets and moons in very different orbits. Let us consider Mars having one side facing another planetary body with an electric current flowing between them. Perhaps this current also flowed past Mars somewhat. What would happen ? It would be like passing an electric current through an iron bar. A remanent magnetic field would be produced.

So now Mars is freed from the other body it was orbitting and has some magnetic field. ( whether it has or not is not the issue here.) So Mars will orientate itself through it's spin and it's magnetic field and through the other forces that keep the planets in a plane. And thus the north pole of Mars is determined by these forces and preconditions. And so it is not at all surprising that the dichotomy is at an angle to the Martian equator.

Similarly with all the other planets and moons, the north pole is determined a lot by past conditions. So not by present day conditions. So not by a N/S difference in charge, even if there were one.

Cheers,
Mo

[dahlenaz]

This image from 2012 may help to further the case for scaleability of an electrical
mechanism to form hexagonal craters at the larger scale of planetary surfaces
like the one formed in this experiment with an inoizer as the power source ... d..z



Larger image (2012 experiment)

...

[willendure]

I don't believe hemisphere dichotomy was caused by the inter-planetary thunderbolts hypothesis, indeed I think that whole idea has a long way to go to gain credibility, although I see plenty evidence for electrical processes being responsible for the shaping of surface features, and some of them perhaps in recent times. But... do you really believe say the entire pacific ocean was carved out of the earth only some thousands of years ago? Where did the ocean go while this was happening, and why didn't it extinct all life of earth?

I think the hemisphere dichotomy had to have been set up much earlier in a planets life; it is the most fundamental surface feature.

I am intrigued by the hypothesis that planets and moons may be the cores of old suns, or ejected from a sun or gas giant. For example, take Widmanstätten patterns found in 'meteorite' rocks. Supposedly such patterns can only form under immense pressures that would not be reached in a meteorite impact. Would they be reached in a thunderbolt strike? I don't know. Would they be reached inside the core of a sun? most certainly.

Could a suns core form with a hemisphere dichotomy, under intense flows of plasma moving around it, in one direction? There is a parallel with earths own core, which we believe to be asymmetric, is there not? It is solidifying on one side, and melting on the other.

Of course, these ideas also have a long way to go to gain credibility, I just wonder if anyone else is thinking them...

[willendure]

This image from 2012 may help to further the case for scaleability of an electrical
mechanism to form hexagonal craters at the larger scale of planetary surfaces
like the one formed in this experiment with an inoizer as the power source ... d..z



Larger image (2012 experiment)

...

That one has an undeniable hexagon shape, yes.

I am assuming this was formed by arcing from a probe tip onto the surface covered in loose material? and by multiple zaps of the arc. Interesting then that it should form a polygon shape. Is there a more detailed explanation of the experiment?

In EofEs paper, the idea of strands of current packing into polygonal structures is discussed. But here we have individual arcing events, not sustained strands of current, and still a polygonal structure is formed. How could that be? For example are there dark mode current filaments flowing, even when the experiment is not arcing? And could the arc follow those current filaments preferentially as they already provide pathways for current to flow? In which case, the idea that a polygonal shape is built up in a probabilistic way, given the higher probability of the arc following an existing filament seems believable.

More details please on how that polygonal shape was excavated.

[dahlenaz]

This image from 2012 may help to further the case for scalability of an electrical
mechanism to form hexagonal craters at the larger scale of planetary surfaces
like the one formed in this experiment with an ionizer as the power source ... d..z

http://para-az.com/esscrt-15/ewnd2arc12899-hcpt.jpg
Larger image (2012 experiment)

...

That one has an undeniable hexagon shape, yes.

I am assuming this was formed by arcing from a probe tip onto the surface covered in loose material? and by multiple zaps of the arc. Interesting then that it should form a polygon shape. Is there a more detailed explanation of the experiment?

To form that crater (2012) and the one of the previous post (2015), visible arcing did not occur or cause the displacement of material. I did force arcs -by close proximity- once the material was already cleared away.
The setup was for another purpose than creating craters. They are just one of the potential results when a stationary electric discharge gets involved with material. The setup can be seen here. The material was a sifted clay that had not been treated with anything to make it less mobile.
In the 2012 experiment i was trying to transfer material from one plate to another, positioned between the source plate and the ionizer -which was drawing dry air in the 2012 experiment and a bit humid air for last week's experiment.

In EofEs paper, the idea of strands of current packing into polygonal structures is discussed. But here we have individual arcing events, not sustained strands of current, and still a polygonal structure is formed. How could that be?

The plasma ball video may offer some clues that may be
further demonstrated by my next experiment.

We must remember that scalability has not been determined.
These experiments are an effort to introduce the electric discharge mechanism to the public.
Some aspects may not scale-up to the type of interactions that EofE is proposing for the craters
he has included as examples.

The cause of craters on celestial bodies has not yet been resolved, so these examples are to offer factors to be considered and discussed. My observations cause me to seek clarity on the role of non-arc interactions in the
formation of planetary features.

For example are there dark mode current filaments flowing, even when the experiment is not arcing? And could the arc follow those current filaments preferentially as they already provide pathways for current to flow? In which case, the idea that a polygonal shape is built up in a probabilistic way, given the higher probability of the arc following an existing filament seems believable.

More details please on how that polygonal shape was excavated.

To your final questions i will say:
probably to both but i do not understand your statement that followed them. ... d..z

...

[moses]

Willendure, I am not sure to whom you are addressing your comments, but if it was to me then hopefully I did not write that the Pacific Ocean was carved out some thousands of years ago. Some thousands of years ago a lot of planetary interaction stuff happened but the formation of the Pacific Ocean was probably way before this, in my view.

I don't think that the Pacific Ocean is the result of something happening on that one side of the Earth. My theory is that two events or situations produced the Pacific Ocean. The Earth had a huge electrical current flowing past and through it from what is now north to south. This produced the present remanent magnetic field which is measured to be decaying. The current split into three sections, one snaking to form the Atlantic Ocean, one snaking to produce the Indian Ocean and Siberia, and the third snaking to produce much of what is now the Pacific Ocean.

Then well after this a planet, probably Mars, came very close to the Earth and an electrical current flowed from Mars to the Americas on Earth. This retarded the movement of the Americas and caused the production of the Andes and Rockies. As Mars passed Earth the electrical current went over Siberia and produced the Himalayas, but also retarded Asia and cause the stretching out of the Pacific Ocean.

So this is an extremely short version of my theory and there are lots of theories about. It is just a matter of not falling in love with one's theories so that you are ready to change them at a moment's notice.
Cheers,
Mo

[dahlenaz]

This video will offer some perspective on how filamentation behaves at the surface
where an electric discharge is at work on a mobily-resistive material.

Details seen in the video may also be applicable to the Ceres bright-spot mystery.

Watch this video at 1/4 speed for best effect.
d..z

...