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 Bomb20 » Sat Mar 08, 2014 12:38 pm

Indeed, Charles, Meteor Crater has a slightly squared form but there are doubts if it is a impact crater. And, please, have a look at this curved chain (!) of oval and other craters on moon!

https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asse ... 10mpix.jpg

To me it does not look like a series of impact craters at all. There are many other examples and I will add some more later (I am in a hurry now. It is evening in my home country.).

And yes, a statistic about little craters on rims of bigger craters is required and I wonder if one is already existing.
I am a newcomer here but it is my own impression that they are way more often on rims than they should be there.

However, you should also do some computing to support your atomic explosion hypothesis.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:01 am

I intended to upload and discuss cut-out details of the picture in my last link but this seems to be impossible and URL are useless to me. So, I will only add one link to the well-known Messier and Messier A (How could an atomic explosion create it?): http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... stones.htm

And, please, have another look at https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asse ... 10mpix.jpg

Magnify and look at all details, follow the channel-like structure step by step. Some of the "craters" are rather "worms" or channels themselves and the whole structure looks like a result of an electric discharge to me. Why?

In my youth I worked as a rolling miller in an Eastgerman steel work which possessed two advanced key technologies: A plasma steel work and a ray gun technology. The latter was called Elektronenstrahl-Mehrkammer-Ofen (engl. Electronic Ray-Multichamber-Oven) , abbr. EMO. This technology was developed by Prof. Manfred Freiherr von Ardenne already in the 1950´s and introduced in the 1960´s. In this oven gas was put in the plasma phase, the released electrons were directed with the help of magnetic fields to re-melt and refine valuable metals (even platinum). The refined metals were used for many challenging applications like high-tec arms, space technology etc.
The factory sent me to an university and I had a practice for three weeks in the vacuum steel work with its ray gun technology (in fact there were 2 devices there at this time but the older, more little one was rarely used) and I wrote a student´s work which was classified at low level.

Today I am still remembering the manual of surface mistakes which displayed unwished results of the work with the ray gun. It happened especially if the process was closed down and some discharges continued to run over the remelted and already cooling down surface of the different raw materials. I can (only) remember the following "mistakes":
1) single craters
2) chains of craters, more or less densely packed
3) chains of craters turned into rills if packed dense enough
4) and even chains of craters running inside of rills or channels were visible
5) so called "Spinnen" occured (arachnoids)
6) Lichtenberg figures
7) and there were strange other forms or patterns like bands (German "Bänder")

Everytime if I see pictures of Mars (Moon to a lesser degree) surface then I see the same features and wonder how anybody can not realize the electric features. I am not denying the existance of impact craters on Moon or Mars but the pictured structure in the link above is electric for me - without any doubt!
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:51 am

Bomb20 wrote:Messier and Messier A (How could an atomic explosion create it?): http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... stones.htm

That looks Newtonian to me.

Bomb20 wrote:And, please, have another look at https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asse ... 10mpix.jpg

That looks electromagnetic to me.

The rest (i.e., the overwhelming majority) look like they are neither Newtonian nor electromagnetic. The only remaining possibility is nuclear.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Mar 09, 2014 6:40 am

CC:
The only remaining possibility is nuclear.
Sorry, I am here without having seen any previous explanation. Nuclear? :? Wouldn't that require a certain mass of fissionable material? An impacting asteroid would only project force on one side? How would that produce enough compression to fission that material? :?
"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 CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:07 am

I'm saying that the impact of solid rocks at >10 km/s is creating the temperatures and pressures necessary for nuclear fusion. If unstable heavy elements (such as uranium) get fused, there might also be some fission before it's all over. But I'm saying that the prime mover is compression that creates fusion.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:35 am

Well, until we collect signature data, it is speculative.... :?
"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 CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:02 am

Sparky wrote:Well, until we collect signature data, it is speculative.... :?

I totally agree with that. I just wanted people to know that there is another possibility. Most of the discussions on craters pretty much go, "Newtonian mechanics predicts oval craters -- most craters are circular -- therefore they're not Newtonian -- therefore, they have to be electromagnetic." Well, you have to consider all of the possibilities, and get proof before locking down on something.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:51 pm

So, have you come up with a mechanism which explains an 8 sec. flash in the thin atmosphere of the moon? :?
"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 CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:16 pm

Sparky wrote:So, have you come up with a mechanism which explains an 8 sec. flash in the thin atmosphere of the moon?

Or how about an even tougher problem. Here is Tempel 1, 67 seconds after the impact of 370 kg solid copper probe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... t_HRI.jpeg

How do you get a sustained arc discharge coming out of an excellent conductor, lasting 67 seconds? Survey says: you don't. No matter the charge disparity between the impacter and the comet, after the initial arc, there could have been return strokes, but complete equalization should have been achieved in less than 1/1000 of a second. Lightning here on Earth can transfer as much as 350 Coulombs in less time than that, and that's in a thick, resistive atmosphere. So there's just no way that the discharge between the impacter and Tempel 1 lasted more than 1/1000 of a second. So why is the impact site still glowing 67 seconds later?

Well, nuclear explosions create fireballs that persist for quite some time. Once heated to millions of kelvins, it takes time for the plasma to cool down. In the meantime, it's going to be an excellent photon source.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_001.jpg

So what we can conclude from Deep Impact is that there was a whole bunch of superheated plasma that continued to glow long after the impact. Lightning here on Earth doesn't generate enough heat to keep plasma that hot for that long, and that's with 350 Coulombs, which would be a ridiculous amount of net charge to try to pack into 370 kg of solid copper. There certainly was an arc discharge, because there had to be some sort of charge disparity between the two objects. But the discharge would have been just a surface effect; it would have lasted less than 1/1000 of a second; and the heat so generated would have dissipated within a few seconds of the discharge. The other possibility is that the impact generated a nuclear explosion, and the superheated plasma took a while to cool back down.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:28 am

---excellent conductor, ---------There certainly was an arc discharge


Conclusions that I would question.....The comet may have been more of an insulator .. :?
And the discharge may have initially been an arc, but possibly glow mode into the plasma dust afterwords. Much like the delayed activity of a charged plastic, which initially arcs, then continues to discharge for awhile... :? ;)
What do you think? :? :oops:

There is a video and discussion about this somewhere... :? :oops:
"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 10, 2014 2:45 pm

Regarding the tempel 1 "67 seconds" thing brought up by CC. I'm not sure about the definitions, whether it's an arc discharge, it looks more like a diffuse glow to me. I think it's known now that the comets are made up of diverse types of matter,especially after samplings of comet tails.
It also makes sense that the exterior which interacts with space may be of a different composition than the interior.
Different materials have different conductivity, so when a comet breaks up its only natural that the inner material becoming suddenly exposed would start interacting with the outside environment during a transitional phase. If the glow lasted 67 seconds as suggested, then most probably the surface of the comet was damaged and exposed the inside of the comet, disturbing the charge distribution.
In researching the the x-ray phenomenon of Tempel 1... according to Chandra observations of June 30th, the comet was emitting x-rays before the impact, interpreted as "The Chandra data indicate that the X-rays observed from Tempel 1 are primarily due to the interaction between highly charged oxygen ions in the solar wind and neutral gases from the comet." The Swift satellite was used to examine x-ray (and other wavelengths) at the time of impact. Swift apparently did not detect significant x-rays but according to analysis, it has confirmed that the comet has a hard surface rather than a soft snowy surface: http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/ ... Impact.htm (but anyone who has seen photographs of the thing can tell that it's obviously a hard rock).

So far, after a set of eight observations each lasting about 50 minutes, Swift scientists have seen a quick and dramatic rise in ultraviolet light, evidence that the Deep Impact probe struck a hard surface, as opposed to a softer, snowy surface.

The EU proponents always said that the dirty snowball was an incorrect assessment of the composition of comets.

Anyhow, I think we're getting off-topic here.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby 4realScience » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:12 pm

@Charles Chandler,


I appreciate your work here and know you are good EU resource, BUT....

But nothing, just kidding. ;)




Give a man a fish..... and he will not be able to hold onto it because it's alive and slippery.
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:32 am

Bomb20 wrote:
Messier and Messier A (How could an atomic explosion create it?): http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... stones.htm

That looks Newtonian to me.


Aha, but it is very difficult to explain this way.


Bomb20 wrote:
And, please, have another look at https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asse ... 10mpix.jpg

That looks electromagnetic to me.


Yes, agreed.

The rest (i.e., the overwhelming majority) look like they are neither Newtonian nor electromagnetic. The only remaining possibility is nuclear.


That is your general impression or hypothesis but I think a more detailed analysis is necessary. Let´s take one example: Everytime if I see a circular crater with a sharp peak then I can attribute this neither to newtonian impacts nor to atomic blasts of impacts. There should not exist any peak at all after an atomic explosion and the newtonian explanation is ridiculous in all these cases in my humble opinion. What do you think about this sort of craters?
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:43 am

Bomb20 wrote:Messier and Messier A (How could an atomic explosion create it?): http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... stones.htm
CharlesChandler wrote:That looks Newtonian to me.
Bomb20 wrote:Aha, but it is very difficult to explain this way.

I don't think that both Messiers were caused by the same impact. Anything forceful enough to do the one wouldn't have "skipped" such a short distance, and still had the energy to do the other. It would be easier to believe that the crater on the left was caused by an impact coming in from the right, carving a shallow trench at first, and eventually burrowing into the topsoil, ending in a deep trench with a rounded end. The crater on the right, with the splash further to the right, would be more likely from an impact coming in from the left. So this looks to me like two separate impacts, from two different directions, but with Newtonian behaviors.

CharlesChandler wrote:The rest (i.e., the overwhelming majority) look like they are neither Newtonian nor electromagnetic. The only remaining possibility is nuclear.
Bomb20 wrote:That is your general impression or hypothesis but I think a more detailed analysis is necessary. Let´s take one example: Everytime if I see a circular crater with a sharp peak then I can attribute this neither to newtonian impacts nor to atomic blasts of impacts. There should not exist any peak at all after an atomic explosion and the newtonian explanation is ridiculous in all these cases in my humble opinion. What do you think about this sort of craters?

I don't see why you think that an explosion couldn't produce a crater with a sharp ridge. The dynamics are surprisingly complex, but nevertheless are predictable. Given an explosion at the surface, it goes without saying that anything with a clear shot into the atmosphere has no effect on the surface -- it is only the aspect of the blast directed down that defines the crater. Directly below the blast, the material has nowhere to go, so despite the fact that some of it gets vaporized, there tends to be a knoll in the very center. Moving away from the center, where the ejecta hit the surface at an angle, there is more excavation. Most of the material goes out into the atmosphere, but a little bit of it is left on the ridge. The reason that the sharp ridge isn't sheared off by the ejecta directly from the blast is that that ejecta is long gone, having encountered no friction as it zipped along the surface. So the streaks that we see on the surface outside of the craters are caused by ejecta from the blast, and the ridges are formed just after those ejecta have passed, by material excavated from inside the crater.

That much is expected, regardless of the type of explosion. The reason for believing that the explosion was nuclear is the roundness of the craters. If the explosion was simply hydrodynamic, we'd expect the ejecta to be traveling at the speed of sound, which is less than 10 km/s, which means that all of the craters would be ovals. To get round craters, the ejecta have to travel far faster than the speed of the impacter. And the only thing that can do that is a thermonuclear explosion.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:01 am

Messier and Messier A: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/%20...%20stones.htm

CC wrote:
I don't think that both Messiers were caused by the same impact. Anything forceful enough to do the one wouldn't have "skipped" such a short distance, and still had the energy to do the other.


I totally agree with you concerning the „skipped“ impactor. That is a childish explanation, an impactor is not a pebble on a river and will not skip, especially not at this short distance.


It would be easier to believe that the crater on the left was caused by an impact coming in from the right, carving a shallow trench at first, and eventually burrowing into the topsoil, ending in a deep trench with a rounded end.


The crater on the left - in the linked TPOD - is Messier crater. It is higher on one side (left) and open on the other side (right). This could indicate that an impactor came in from the right side but it could be also a result of certain geographical features before the impact.


The crater on the right, with the splash further to the right, would be more likely from an impact coming in from the left. So this looks to me like two separate impacts, from two different directions, but with Newtonian behaviors.


Sorry, but it it makes a lot more sense to me if the impactors (if there was any impactor and not EM impacts) came from the same side in both cases and were probably result of the same event. The oval crater Messier is not closed on the right side and also Messier A is disturbed on the right side! This would support the idea of impactors from the very same direction.
Compare with: http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/view?image_id=AS15-M-2405

In fact Messier A is rather looking like a horseshoe but if we „think away“ the disturbed part and replace this side by the round features of the rest of the crater then we get a perfect circular crater! According to Charles circular craters are atomic craters. So, what prevented Messier A to become a perfect (allegedly atomic) crater? Is it an disturbed atomic or newtonian crater?
And is there not an ionized trail going to Messier A (better to see in the link below)?
See: http://www.astrotech-hannover.de/mond/htm/krater/19-08-07_18-36_UT.htm

A number of plasma, ray gun and welding technologies in metallurgy and metal working produce craters with a great diversity of shapes; perfect and non-perfect circular ones as well as non-circular craters. As mentioned earlier longer lasting discharges turn round craters into more oval looking craters and chains of craters (round, oval, worm-like) into trenches and rills. And by the way EM forces can also skip and form craters of different shapes like Messier and Messier A.

In my humble opinion both craters continue to be open for debate, also for EM solutions.
I can not agree with the assumption that only atomic explosions can form round craters on celestial bodies.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest