Moon Craters

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: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Steve Smith » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:04 am

What do you think caused it?
Steve Smith
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:31 pm

Well, my guess would be a meteor hit, initiating a discharge into the plume of dust. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby justcurious » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:06 pm

This news is great for the EU model.
Lunar flashes used to be dismissed as illusions or delusional eye-witnesses, just as meteor sightings two centuries ago. The lunar flashes are most probably meteorites that spark (electric discharge, similar to static electricity) as they approach the moon's surface. They probably get obliterated in mid air and the crater is caused by the electric discharge rather than impact. I don't know if there's an official Thunderbolts position on this but it seems like the most obvious explanation to me.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:10 am

justcurious wrote:The lunar flashes are most probably meteorites that spark (electric discharge, similar to static electricity) as they approach the moon's surface. They probably get obliterated in mid air and the crater is caused by the electric discharge rather than impact. I don't know if there's an official Thunderbolts position on this but it seems like the most obvious explanation to me.

That's precisely the EU position, but it asks more questions than it answers. Any net charge on the meteoroid will be around the outside, due to the electrostatic repulsion of like charges. So any discharge between the meteoroid and the Moon will be just a surface effect. The extreme heat at the arc footpoint might disperse dust on the surfaces of the electrodes, perhaps creating something that looks like a crater. But there is no reason to think that the discharge will obliterate the meteoroid, if it's just a surface effect. So even if there is a discharge, the meteoroid should still impact the Moon, with most of its mass intact. So where is the evidence of the secondary impact of the main body of the meteoroid?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby justcurious » Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:29 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote:The lunar flashes are most probably meteorites that spark (electric discharge, similar to static electricity) as they approach the moon's surface. They probably get obliterated in mid air and the crater is caused by the electric discharge rather than impact. I don't know if there's an official Thunderbolts position on this but it seems like the most obvious explanation to me.

That's precisely the EU position, but it asks more questions than it answers. Any net charge on the meteoroid will be around the outside, due to the electrostatic repulsion of like charges. So any discharge between the meteoroid and the Moon will be just a surface effect. The extreme heat at the arc footpoint might disperse dust on the surfaces of the electrodes, perhaps creating something that looks like a crater. But there is no reason to think that the discharge will obliterate the meteoroid, if it's just a surface effect. So even if there is a discharge, the meteoroid should still impact the Moon, with most of its mass intact. So where is the evidence of the secondary impact of the main body of the meteoroid?


I guess it boils down to "how much?".
If there's just a bit if difference between the two objects, than I would agree with your assumption.
But if there is a big difference in charge and potential, I would tend to think otherwise.
Some things to consider:
- the crater shapes are very difficult to explain with an "impact only" hypothesis
- our own experiment, Deep Impact, supports the "obliterated" hypothesis
- The charge difference may be between the center of the meteor and the moon's surface, you are assuming that it's necessarily a "meteor surface" phenomenon
- Note that the meteor does not have to be positive while the moon is negative or vice-versa, they can be of different degrees of the same sign. For example, one is negatively charged and the other is very very very negatively charged.

Also, as you mention, charge tends to spread out over a surface.
This is very supportive of the electric discharge hypothesis since what we observe are relatively round, symmetric and shallow craters. In other words, the surface is ripped off the moon in an evenly distributed way, as opposed to a projectile creating a hole. Also, the projectile hypothesis would require that they always hit the moon head on at 90 degrees, I don't remember seeing any oval shaped craters with an impact hole off-center.

The only thing I see supporting a "partial" projectile hypothesis is that meteor remnants are found on craters on Earth. However I am not sure they are found in the crater itself. It's also possible the meteor remnants are actually artifacts of matter exchanged and metamorphosed during charge/matter exchange.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:04 pm

justcurious wrote:- the crater shapes are very difficult to explain with an "impact only" hypothesis

They are difficult to explain purely with Newtonian mechanics, which would predict oval-shaped craters, and we only find circular craters. But that doesn't prove that the craters were gouged out by EDM. I rather think that the impacts generate thermonuclear explosions. With velocities greater than 10 km/s, how could they not? The instantaneous pressure on impact should be off the charts. The circular craters are then created by the relativistic velocities of the nuclear ejecta, where the radial velocities are so much greater than the incident velocities that there is no elongation of the craters.

justcurious wrote:- our own experiment, Deep Impact, supports the "obliterated" hypothesis

It supports the "obliterated" hypothesis, but you still have to establish how an arc discharge can obliterate an impactor. A thermonuclear explosion does that nicely. And the absence of a crater on Tempel 1 would be expected if the explosion occurred immediately on impact, whisking away a little bit of surface dust, but not drilling into the comet.

justcurious wrote:Note that the meteor does not have to be positive while the moon is negative or vice-versa, they can be of different degrees of the same sign. For example, one is negatively charged and the other is very very very negatively charged.

How could either object be "very very very" charged? With a breakdown voltage in space of <1 V/m, there isn't much resistance to sustain any great resting charge. Regardless, all net charges on small objects are surface effects.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby justcurious » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:08 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote:- the crater shapes are very difficult to explain with an "impact only" hypothesis

They are difficult to explain purely with Newtonian mechanics, which would predict oval-shaped craters, and we only find circular craters. But that doesn't prove that the craters were gouged out by EDM. I rather think that the impacts generate thermonuclear explosions. With velocities greater than 10 km/s, how could they not? The instantaneous pressure on impact should be off the charts. The circular craters are then created by the relativistic velocities of the nuclear ejecta, where the radial velocities are so much greater than the incident velocities that there is no elongation of the craters.


The 100% proof is not there yet, but we're getting there, for example this recent incident helps support the hypothesis. Thermonuclear explosion, requires quite a stretch of my imagination, I would say there's even less proof of that. Can a nuclear explosion create shallow craters? And how would it create mini-craters on the rims of larger craters? So if a body moves fast enough and hits another body, it creates a nuclear explosion? I like to stay grounded in reality so I will stick with the electrostatic type event. I have seen videos of lunar flashes and they look like static electricity to me, not like a nuclear bomb. The electric discharge hypothesis is also well supported by plenty of observations and evidence.

CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote:- our own experiment, Deep Impact, supports the "obliterated" hypothesis

It supports the "obliterated" hypothesis, but you still have to establish how an arc discharge can obliterate an impactor. A thermonuclear explosion does that nicely. And the absence of a crater on Tempel 1 would be expected if the explosion occurred immediately on impact, whisking away a little bit of surface dust, but not drilling into the comet.

Deep impact did not create a crater. Let's remember that the projectile was not a meteor and the asteroid was not the moon. However, the projectile was obliterated before it hit the asteroid and also generated a blinding flash. I think it's quite obvious what happened there.

CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote:Note that the meteor does not have to be positive while the moon is negative or vice-versa, they can be of different degrees of the same sign. For example, one is negatively charged and the other is very very very negatively charged.

How could either object be "very very very" charged? With a breakdown voltage in space of <1 V/m, there isn't much resistance to sustain any great resting charge. Regardless, all net charges on small objects are surface effects.


The meteorite would have traveled through space in various regions with differing electrical environments, that's how it would have a differing electric potential than the moon.
The point I was making is that, if the meteor and moon had slightly differing electric potential then maybe there would be no obliteration, but if there was a big difference then the obliteration is likely. It goes back to my opening line of "how much".
The breakdown voltage in space is irrelevant, a meteor in space in the middle of nowhere is different than a meteor in space getting very close to another charged object.

I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone of the electrical discharge hypothesis.
In my opinion it is the most obvious and likely explanation of the lunar flashes and craters on the moon.
If you want to believe in a nuclear explosion theory then have fun with it!
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby 4realScience » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:08 pm

@CharlesChandler: collision makes nuclear explosion?


Yes, 10 km/sec is high energy but have you worked out the energy release as nuclear, I mean in equations? I haven't. Here's why I still don't follow. To get a nuclear explosion you need more than energy; you need density like Plutonium, to keep the reaction going, at least for a while, else you only get the liberated heat energy of the collision. And here's the problem: that energy is probably not enough to get the perfect-circle crater effect unless it can create debris flying away, in all directions uniformly, from the impact point at more than, say, 100 times the collision velocity (impacter speed vector added to Moon's speed).



We could easily tell the difference as we watched any such event, providing we could see it, and hopefully see it in the full range EMF spectrum as opposed to visible light only because we could then sum the radiated energy and compare it to the thermal-only impact energy. Even the visible-only part would be enough to decide in certainty (yet would not catch the smaller segment of cases).

Are you working a hunch here, as to nuclear, or do you have better indicators?
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:39 pm

justcurious wrote:Thermonuclear explosion, requires quite a stretch of my imagination, I would say there's even less proof of that.

Well, OK. Thermonuclear explosions require extreme pressures and temperatures. The instantaneous forces in the collisions of incompressible objects create enormous pressures and temperatures. Somewhere in there, you exceed the threshold for a thermonuclear explosion. One small step for CharlesChandler -- one giant leap for JustCurious. :D

justcurious wrote:Can a nuclear explosion create shallow craters?

If the explosion occurs immediately on impact, it will just blow away any loose dust, or loosely packed rubble.

justcurious wrote:And how would it create mini-craters on the rims of larger craters?

The same way, by later impacts of smaller objects.

justcurious wrote:So if a body moves fast enough and hits another body, it creates a nuclear explosion?

Why wouldn't it?

justcurious wrote:I like to stay grounded in reality so I will stick with the electrostatic type event. I have seen videos of lunar flashes and they look like static electricity to me, not like a nuclear bomb. The electric discharge hypothesis is also well supported by plenty of observations and evidence.

Somewhere in here, we have to ask the question of why an electrostatic discharge would excavate a crater. If you're going to say that it was all EDM, where the discharge wandered around, sculpting out a perfectly symmetrical shape, you don't know much about EDM. An uncontrolled, sustained discharge might wander, but it doesn't produce a smooth-bottom, symmetrical shape. Rather, it produces a highly irregular surface. Laboratory demonstrations of symmetrical dust craters created from discharges are not from the discharges, but rather, from the miniature shock front that you get when the arc stops. The discharge channel collapses, and then the air bounces off of itself. In other words, it's exactly the same process that creates thunder. You get the same effect when you shut off an acetylene torch -- the symmetrical cavity in the air that was being kept open by the flame collapses, and then the air bounces off of itself, creating a little popping sound. Well, if there was some dust there, you might get a little crater excavated by that little shock wave. But since the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere, there aren't going to be any shock waves from an imploding discharge channel. So what excavates the craters?

justcurious wrote:However, the projectile was obliterated before it hit the asteroid and also generated a blinding flash. I think it's quite obvious what happened there.

How did you determine the part in bold?

justcurious wrote:The point I was making is that, if the meteor and moon had slightly differing electric potential then maybe there would be no obliteration, but if there was a big difference then the obliteration is likely. It goes back to my opening line of "how much".

I understand that. My question concerns how you get such a "big difference", and yes, the breakdown voltage in space is very relevant, since this limits the net charge that any object can have. Just due to covalent bonding, solids and liquids can typically host up to 1 ppm of excess electrons, and the negative charge is to be found entirely on the surface of a spherical object, meaning that the discharge will be just a surface effect. Much more than 1 ppm and the covalent bonding can't hold onto the net negative charge, and electrons are released. Solids and liquids can also be net positive, to the limits of the Coulomb force that would fragment the object. But again, the net charge is on the surface of a spherical object. The electrons are attracted to the net positive charge, which is greater in the center of the object. So the electrons will move to the center, leaving the surface positively charged. And again, any discharge to neutralize this net charge will be a surface effect. And surface-to-surface discharges are not explosive.

4realScience wrote:Yes, 10 km/sec is high energy but have you worked out the energy release as nuclear, I mean in equations?

No, and to answer your later question, I'm just doing hunchology here. But there are few available energy sources, and at the very least, we can sanity check the expectations of each energy source.

4realScience wrote:To get a nuclear explosion you need more than energy; you need density like Plutonium, to keep the reaction going, at least for a while, else you only get the liberated heat energy of the collision. And here's the problem: that energy is probably not enough to get the perfect-circle crater effect unless it can create debris flying away, in all directions uniformly, from the impact point at more than, say, 100 times the collision velocity (impacter speed vector added to Moon's speed).

You're exactly right that the explosion (from whatever source) has to accelerate ejecta to a far greater speed, to produce a circular crater, given a non-perpendicular angle of incidence. But when you say that the instantaneous pressure/temperature increase on impact is "probably not enough" to release that kind of energy, I don't think that your hunchology is necessarily conclusive enough to rule out the possibility.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby justcurious » Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:25 pm

Here are some pictures of shallow craters caused by lightning on an antenna bay.

Image

Image

Image
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:03 pm

Why aren't they all perfectly round, like they are on the Moon, if they are definitely from discharges, and if roundness proves discharges?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby justcurious » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:17 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Why aren't they all perfectly round, like they are on the Moon, if they are definitely from discharges, and if roundness proves discharges?


You're right! They're triangular :o
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:42 am

CC concerning crater shapes:

They are difficult to explain purely with Newtonian mechanics, which would predict oval-shaped craters, and we only find circular craters.


This is a sweeping generalization concerning the shapes and therefore not correct! We find some non-circular shapes as well, oval/eliptical and hexagonal shapes of craters on moon and other celestial bodies. And I am not aware of any picture of any atomic crater on Earth with these shapes. They are all circular or did I miss any important photo? :?:
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:05 am

justcurious wrote:
And how would it create mini-craters on the rims of larger craters?


The same way, by later impacts of smaller objects.


Very, very doubtful. There are so many cases of little craters on the rims of bigger craters to find that one can not believe in "accidental" hits of smaller objects. Why should smaller objects have this clear preference for the rims? There is a lot bigger chance to hit inside and outside of the old crater!

As well the question arises how many craters on moon were caused by atomic explosions during impacts of objects?
All? Only a few? And how could one tell the difference between both types - impacts with atomic and non-atomic craters? Should we not expect different shapes and characteristics, Charles?
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:59 am

Bomb20 wrote:We find some non-circular shapes as well, oval/elliptical and hexagonal shapes of craters on moon and other celestial bodies.

Can you post links to images of elliptical and hexagonal craters? Meteor Crater, Arizona, USA has a slightly squared shape, but I'm having a hard time recalling any that weren't closer to circular than anything else, and more symmetrical than the arc discharge footpoints that JustCurious showed.

Bomb20 wrote:There are so many cases of little craters on the rims of bigger craters to find that one can not believe in "accidental" hits of smaller objects. Why should smaller objects have this clear preference for the rims?

I'm not convinced that the smaller objects are actually showing a preference for the rims -- the distribution of big and little craters seems pretty random to me. Has anybody done a statistical analysis of this?

Bomb20 wrote:As well the question arises how many craters on moon were caused by atomic explosions during impacts of objects? All? Only a few? And how could one tell the difference between both types - impacts with atomic and non-atomic craters? Should we not expect different shapes and characteristics, Charles?

I think that anything big enough to cause a crater is going to cause a thermonuclear explosion. Big rocks cause big explosions, and small rocks cause small ones. But if it is big enough to drill through the dust/rubble layer, and smack into solid rock, the instantaneous temperatures and pressures from a >10 km/s impact will go off the charts, and that's all it takes to get nuclear fusion.

I think that this is what happened when the Deep Impact probe slammed into Tempel 1. The probe was only 370 kg, but it impacted at a relative speed of 10.3 km/s. Scientists expected a crater 100 m wide, and they expected the impacter to drill deep into the interior of the comet, assuming that it was all loosely packed dust and ice crystals. As it was, there was a flash of light on impact that was much brighter than expected, and no hole. The "crater" (if you can call it that) was barely visible when the comet was photographed again 6 years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeepI ... Crater.jpg

The scientists said that all of the dust kicked up by the impact must have settled back into the crater, perfectly filling it back in. But that's ridiculous. As one of the TPODs pointed out, the escape velocity from such a small gravitational source is only a couple of m/s, and the ejecta from the impact were traveling much, much faster than that. So the "dirty snowball" model has to be tossed. Clearly, the impacter hit solid rock. The reason for the absence of a crater is that the thing went nuclear as soon as it hit, without drilling into the surface at all. A nuclear explosion at or above the surface isn't going to create a crater. (See the photos from the nuke dropped on Hiroshima for example.) To get a crater, you have to bury the bomb inside the ground. Otherwise, most of the blast spreads outward along the surface, and back away from the surface after bouncing off.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests