Help Us Explain Crater Formation!

[SirWilhelm]

I'm surprised that Thunderbolts readers, and bloggers, are not more familiar with ancient texts such as the "enuma elish", which describes the formation of the Solar System, using the names of "monsters" for the planets. They describe, at least, one collision between a rogue planet that is dragged into the Solar System by the gravity of the Sun and the existing planets. During the collision, it was actually a satellite of the rogue planet that hit the planet, Tiamat, as it was known then, where the Pacific Ocean is now. The debris from the collision, and cosmic scale electrical events associated with it, created the asteroid belt, the "hammered bracelet" as the ancients called it. Tiamat had other satellites, which were stripped from it, leaving just the moon, which had been turned into a "pot of lead" by cosmic scale lightning. Tiamat was pushed into a new orbit, and after reconstituting itself, became Earth.

The rogue planet became part of the Solar System, although with a comet's orbit with a period of 3,600 Earth years. It later had another close encounter with Earth, and Mars, passing between them, creating the catastrophes we know as the Biblical, worldwide, Flood. The cosmic scale electrical events from that, left many new scars on Earth. If all of that is true, the comet like planet will eventually pass through the Solar System once again. It's orbit's period may have been altered by the Flood passage, making it hard to predict when that might occur.

[webolife]

My view of Earth's catastrophic history doesn't follow either the Saturnian theory or Velikovsky per se , although I was somewhat inspired by the latter. There is plenty of evidence historically, geologically, and biblically, that astronomical encounters are responsible for or involved in events described in the biblical and other cultural creation/flood accounts. Regarding the hemisphere dichotomy, it is important not to oversimplify, as there are multiple "non-aligned" aspects of it which are difficult to harmonize:
1. The Pacific Basin, which is sometimes described as an impact basin for a planetary collision.
2. Alternately, the continental landmasses are replete with hundreds of astroblemes which notably may be identified with every major stratum in the [imagined] geologic column. Now possibly there are an equal number on the Pacific "side" of the planet which either have been erased by water action or simply not discovered yet...
3. The north-south dichotomy of land to ocean ratio, the southern hemisphere being more oceanic.
4. The dipolar magnetic field, which is less describable as a bar magnet than most of us were led to believe in our schooling, as depicted interestingly in this computer model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
While any or all of these dichotmomies may be attributable to astronomical/interplanetary encounters, it is difficult to find a single event or category of causation. However, [to Nick] I am also of the perspective that most of the geological column [say from Cambrian to Pliocene] may be attributed to a single related series of catastrophic events, occurring in a geologically short time frame. In addition, the so-called "reversals" of magnetism, especially those modeled along various seafloor spreading zones, may be due to a different cause related to bursts of volcanic activity during the episode of [rapid] continental drift. as is the case with small magnets, it seems possible to me and perhaps even likely that successive flows of lava will appear relatively reversed as a natural result of local magnetic field interactions.
In the distant future, when we have had more opportunities to explore the subsurface geologies of other worlds, it will be interesting to note whether other/all planetary bodies exhibit magnetic reversal zones...

[Rossim]

Several Thunderbolts videos have shown examples of not just electric discharge cratering, but electrostatic remodeling of a dusty surface. Therefore, a global electric event could remove dirt from one hemisphere and place it on the other, depending on which side is + or - would determine if the hemisphere is eroded or not.

I'm curious wether or not planets need to come close to other planets (or moons) in order for these planetary surface alterations to occur. Without assuming the planets were in an aligned configuration or different orbits than they are in now, I'd like to think it's possible an extraordinary solar storm could cause a global event on a body without much of an atmosphere. The Carrington event of 1859 produced aurorae seen all over the world so a stronger event on a more vulnerable planet could have devastating effects.

[moses]

Rossim, hello.
Many people want the planets not to have moved out of their present orbits and so there are theories that allow this with Solar storms being the best or most popular theory. The biggest issue is that the production of the Geological Column, which is layers of sedimentary rocks, is best explained by catastrophic means. So Solar storms would be theorised to produce a lot of erosion and consequently a lot of deposition thus producing the layers of the Geological Column.

Well firstly the oceans are a problem in this Solar storm theory. The oceans appear to have had little deposition but probably lots of erosion. This would be best explained in the Solar storm theory by electric currents entering at the, say, north pole and travelling over the oceans to the south pole and eroding the oceans and depositing material in the continents thus forming the Geological Column. Of course current does enter at the poles now but there are problems.

The Pacific Ocean presents one problem and the postulate that a Solar storm eroded out the Pacific Ocean has the major issue that the Earth spins and so the storm would have had to have been so extremely intense just to etch out only the Pacific Ocean that nothing would have survived. The Pacific Ocean could have been stretched later, which is indeed part of my theory, but I do not have any qualms about the planets getting into other orbits because the orbits are very delicately balanced. We just have to face up to this. Then planetary interactions are to be expected.

Cheers,
Mo

[Rossim]

Mo, the idea that solar storms could cause hemispheric dichotomy would only apply to those planets and moons with hemisphere dichotomy... I wouldn't say Earth has this characteristic so another method entirely may be responsible for our planet's features.

[moses]

Rossim, let's take Mars for an example then. One side would get eroded by a Solar storm and the other side would get deposition. Now for this to happen over any length of time is problematic because Mars would rotate. A very fast erosion and deposition would be an unbelievably energetic event that would surely knock the planets out of their orbits. Mars holding one face to the Sun would be most unlikely too, because somehow Mars would have sped up rotation and changed axis to get to the present configuration.

So the trouble is that the planets are delicately balanced in their orbits and any force great enough to quickly cause a big erosion would be enough to change the orbits of the planets. A configuration that slowly etched one side of Mars is much more likely. And just as our Moon always has one side facing Earth and Io has one side facing Jupiter then Mars probably had one side facing some some large planet with an electric current passing between them.

So in my mind we always come back to the likelihood of a previous planetary configuration, and one can easily explain the various properties of the planets using such a configuration. And it is only our fear of our planets changing orbit that hinders us from considering this seriously.

Cheers,
Mo

[willendure]

Now for this to happen over any length of time is problematic because Mars would rotate.

Unless the eroding force was directed at one of the poles, then the rotation would not matter. Mars has a north/south dichotomy.

[moses]

Willendure,
The Mars dichotomy is at about a 20 or 30 degree angle away from the Martian equator. Enough of an angle to consider that Mars was 'knocked' over or that Mars was in some other configuration in the past. So we get back to planetary interaction anyway.

Now a strong electric current might enter at the poles if there was a strong magnetic field with the North Pole somewhere near the north magnetic pole. Like Earth but not Mars. This current must not exit the planet on the other side, or the other pole in this case, because that would cause erosion on this other side with material lost in space. The dichotomy would have been produced by Mars interacting with, in a stable configuration, another planet at a much different electrical potential so that the current is there to attempt to neutralize this potential difference.

The theory that the planets never moved out of their present orbits is far inferior to the theory that in the past the planets were in a different configuration, which broke up sending the planets into random orbits for a time. If one seriously looks at the evidence then that is the inevitable conclusion, as distasteful as it is.

Cheers,
Mo

[Rossim]

Moses, as willendure stated, the rotation of Mars would not effect the north/south dichotomy of its surface. I'm not saying that the planets weren't in a different configuration than now, I'm just thinking that a significant solar storm directed towards Mars could have a simultaneous global surface remodeling without ever assuming that the planets were orbiting differently than they are now. This is favorable according to Ockham's razor, which the EU supporters continuously lecture to those of the mainstream, as a solar storm induced planetary discharge simply requires fewer assumptions than a planet-to-planet/moon discharge. The latter could still be possible and explain other phenomena, especially those pertaining to "Symbols of an Alien Sky."

[moses]

Rossim,
There is no exact north-south dichotomy on Mars. The dichotomy is at an angle of about 30 degrees to the equator. This strongly suggests that the axis on Mars has moved 30 degrees and a planetary interaction is the most likely explanation. It would be nice if a Solar storm caused the dichotomy, but the facts just don't support this.

Cheers,
Mo

[willendure]

Rossim,
There is no exact north-south dichotomy on Mars. The dichotomy is at an angle of about 30 degrees to the equator. This strongly suggests that the axis on Mars has moved 30 degrees and a planetary interaction is the most likely explanation. It would be nice if a Solar storm caused the dichotomy, but the facts just don't support this.

Cheers,
Mo

I pointed out the north/south dichotomy of Mars, and the possible polar orientation of an eroding force, not so much to support the solar storm hypotheses, as to point out that the erosion event would not necessarily have to be very short. There could have been a longer event, if focused on the pole if it were a planetary interaction too.

One hypothesis is, if inner planets were ejected from the gas giants, then the planetary interaction causing the hemisphere dichotomy could have occurred then, during the ejection. Perhaps the planets were ejected with one pole facing the parent body?

The problem with the solar storm hypothesis, is that charged particles are attracted to the north and south poles equally (correct me if I am wrong about that!). Hence we have aurora borealis AND aurora australis, not just one of them.

[moses]

<There could have been a longer event, if focused on the pole if it were a planetary interaction too. willendure>

Just like the interaction between Jupiter and Io at present.
If the 'inner planets' were ejected from gas giants then to get them pretty round one would expect that they formed at the centre of such a gas giant. And so something happens to get then to be ejected, presumably at tremendous velocity so as to get an escape velocity. Then in your theory as this planet left, an electrical interaction between the gas giant and the planet would cause erosion of one side of the planet.

Now I have to say that either a splitting of this gas giant or the close interaction of two gas giants would be my best guess as to how a planet could be produced as this would require very little velocity of the planet and the planet would only need to stay between the two large bodies as they separated. Then we could get the required erosion, but a Jupiter-Io type interaction over a long time period seems an easy way to get the Mars dichotomy. All we need is Mars being where Io is now, for instance, and conditions being more electrical.

<The problem with the solar storm hypothesis, is that charged particles are attracted to the north and south poles equally. willendure>

For Earth the charged particles follow the magnetic field so it may be different on Mars, for example. Also, although the path of a small Solar storm entering the Earth magnetosphere has been found, a super storm may track entirely differently. Even the idea that a super storm just near instantly blasts away an enormous amount of material from one side of a planet or moon is much too intense to consider, but still possible. We just look for the best fit.

Cheers,
Mo

[Rossim]

Rossim,
There is no exact north-south dichotomy on Mars. The dichotomy is at an angle of about 30 degrees to the equator. This strongly suggests that the axis on Mars has moved 30 degrees and a planetary interaction is the most likely explanation. It would be nice if a Solar storm caused the dichotomy, but the facts just don't support this.

Cheers,
Mo

I'm not sure how the facts could support either theory with the observations we've been left with. As you say, the dichotomy is at an angle... this does not 'strongly suggest' a planet interaction as the source of the dichotomy, it only suggests that the mechanism which produced this pattern happened before Mars tilted the 30 degrees.

The problem with the solar storm hypothesis, is that charged particles are attracted to the north and south poles equally (correct me if I am wrong about that!). Hence we have aurora borealis AND aurora australis, not just one of them.

The Thunderbolts have shown that the charged dust particles move from one charge and towards another. Likewise, a Lichtenberg figure on a positively charged surface leaves a positive elevation and vise versa (this may be the opposite but the concept is accurate). Therefore, if a global event were occurring the dust may arrange itself similarly, a positive relief on one hemisphere and a depression on the other.

[mattwood]

I've been wondering if there have ever been experiments conducted where electric discharge was unleashed on levitating spheres?

I am very interested in cratering and other scars left on planetary and moon surfaces and have been wondering what has been done experimentally to show some of the possibilities.

I found this example of levitation of a metal sphere on-line - so at least the levitation aspect seems possible.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... metal-orbs

If spheres like this could be coated in various soil and/or mineral compounds to create a kind of miniature planetary "crust" then the metal sphere could serve as the body's planetary metallic core - as the "proto planet" is suspended - blast it with electrical discharges to see what kind of cratering and other patterning might occur on the coated surface.

Having been inspired by the SAFIRE project that is currently in process - I would love this see this kind of experimentation take place showing how planetary bodies and moons might be effected by discharges and electromagnetic fields.

If any of the cratering and scarring looked similar to what is currently seen in space - it might help advance the idea that the craters we see need not be made primarily by "impactors" such as meteors.

If it were shown in the lab that a multitude of craters might be created in a short amount of time during an experiment like this - it could offer an alternative to the dating by cratering that seems to be so prevalent today, as well.

Thoughts?
matt wood

[MattEU]

Has any one done that sort of thing (covering it with elements, compounds, minerals etc and then blasting it) with different terrellas including Kristian Birkeland's terrella?