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 Lloyd » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:08 pm

Juergens' Rille Features Table
CharlesChandler wrote: And why are rows of craters more common than chance? Because some impacters break up just before impact.

Charles, did you read Juergens' article "Of the Moon and Mars"? Looks like Nick referenced it too.
About halfway down the page at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm Juergens showed a picture of a 40 foot long "Earth rille" known to have been carved by lightning on a baseball diamond in Florida during a game. A little below that picture he showed this table of lunar rille features, which strongly suggests to me that lightning likely carved the rilles on the Moon.
TABLE 1: Competence of Various Sinuous Rille Theories

Rille Char. Proposed Rille Origin Theory

erosion ---- erosion --- formed by --- formed by --- electric
via water --- gas cloud --- gas blow --- lava tube --- eruption

wider at high end C C O B A
channel sinuous A C O C A
upper end crater B B O B A
ends at diff. elev. A A O A A
no out wash dep. C-X C-X B C-X A
no chan. bridges A A O B-C A
chan. cratering O O A O A
trav. high ground X X B X B
stray fr. surf. dip C-X C-X B C-X B
on ridge crest X X A B A
strata exposure B B A C-X A-B
strata upturned X X A X A
rille clustering C C B-C B-C A-B
rille crossing C-X C-X A-O C-X B
2nd rille in bottom B C C C B

SYMBOLS:

A. Predictable on basis of theory;
B. Permissible in terms of theory;
C. Permissible, but difficult to explain;
O. Apparently irrelevant in terms of theory;
X. evidence precludes theory.

Craters in Rilles
CC: I couldn't figure out why there are two distinct morphologies there -- the rift is a continuous crack, and then there are these round craters. If the whole thing was EM, I'd expect the "craters" to be dwell points, and the rifts to be skip stretches, and the EDM should be more or less continuous. So the craters would be just a matter of degree, not a difference in kind, compared to the rifts. [] I don't see what forces would operate from the inside. Rather, I think that the force that breaks up the impacter is electrostatic. This would pull all of the charge over to the side facing the Moon. A force in the direction of the Moon would break up the impacter into a vertical column of pieces, which would hit the surface in a line.

That's apparently what happened to the SL9 comet that impacted Jupiter in 1994 after the 21 or so comet pieces traveled in single file for two years after having come close to Jupiter previously. How near the ground could an impacter break up into a column of pieces that then make a crater chain? Any idea? Do you contend that impacters would produce thermonuclear explosions at points of impact, which would leave craters with clean floors free of debris?

I think you stated last year or so that rilles seen around impact craters on Earth would have formed electrically as the impacter neared the impact point. Wouldn't larger rilles have formed similarly on the Moon from lightning from larger impacters, such as Aristarchus and many others? It looks to me like a large impacter would form one or more rilles electrically and pieces of the impacter seem to follow the electrical pathway and explode in the rille as it's forming. Or maybe the electrically eroding rille follows the impacter pieces.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:45 pm

~
Shelgeyr, Great pic, can't wait for your overlay.
Some 'aural oval' morphology going on there too, it seems ?
s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:01 am

Why did the process (whatever it is) of crater creation for big craters prefer the highlands and was rather ignoring lowlands?


I raised the question because I am not feeling comfortable with the explanation in this article. I also kept an answer like nick c in my mind. However, one has to check always all different opportunities and also conventional explanations.

CC wrote (summarizing the article´s answer):
The article suggests that the highlands solidified first, and continue to bear the marks of impacts occurring at that time, which included larger objects. The lowlands would have received the same number impacts per unit area during that time, but the molten rock didn't preserve the craters. After the lowlands had solidified, the impacter population had changed. I don't know if there is any way to corroborate this.


This scenario leads to questions like:
a) Why did the highlands solidify first? (Do we really need solidification for an explanation?)
b) And why do we have highlands at all?
c) What time was „at that time“? (How old?)
d) Why did the impacter population change?
e) Why did the time of big impactors come to an end?
f) And why is there a difference between big craters and little craters in distribution at all?
g) Where did the bombardment come from?
...
In my humble opinion the whole article is thought to be compatible to a „big bombardment scenario“ billions of years ago. Therefore I am afraid that conventional cosmologists will not raise critical questions and simply accept the study as confirming all traditional explanations.

I am not so familiar with all aspects of the EU hypothesis because I regained my interest in cosmology barely 2 years ago but I could imagine an EU scenario very well. An encounter of celestial objects and their plasma shells could result in unbelieveable huge discharges. This could explain the „change of impactors“ because the huge impacts of electric discharges came to an end when the encounter ended. Later only debris of this event came down as real impactors and caused many or all of the little craters until today. The main discharges could have hit even the dark lowlands at first and levelled them (and were removing higher mountains if existant before). Later or lesser intense discharges could have hit todays highlands.

Corrobation is hard to get for both scenarios but the redirection of a huge clestial body to the Moon with the intent to create a huge impact crater could be possible one day and could be telling. Current NASA tests with probes and parts of rockets are probably simply lacking energy. It is impossible for advocates of the EU to do a similar big-scale test with discharges but a failure of the impactor test („wrong“ craters) together with successful bigger tests in labs could create more acceptance for this approach.

Furthermore, the study of the electric side of impactors is a very promising field of research if one finds fitting methods to do it. It is not a revolutionary idea like EU but could help to understand impactors and interactions between thermal-chemical and electric processes.

Thank you for the link to Juergen's article, Nick! The ray craters are absolutely interesting phenomena. Until now I knew only Dr. Körtvélessy's electric model of the creation of ray craters after impacts:
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/Lunar_ray_craters.html

Körtvélessy´s Electric Universe is rather a traditional gravitation universe enriched by some EM explanations. I did not see that he mentioned any radiactivity or Radon gas of ray craters in his explanations but I think one could find more information in his book. I wonder how non-conventional physicists evaluate his electric model?
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby Bomb20 » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:55 am

Your ideas and explanations are interesting all the time, Charles, and I always enjoy your comments and also your website.

Nevertheless I have some reasons to resist the suggestion that „round craters were squashed into oval craters by tectonics“ on Moon. At first we have to keep in mind that tectonism is lacking on Moon. It is believed that the Moon has been essentially inactive since at least 3 billion years! Therefore your suggestion implies that we are looking at a primeval artifact. I don´t share this idea.

It also escapes me how a round crater could be transformed into an oval crater without displaying any major fractures or demolitions on its structure. It is not made of rubber! Moreover it is hardly to explain by your suggestion that round and oval craters and other structures are situated next to each other - the quashing tectonic forces must have worked in a very different and very selective manner on very little areas for your idea.

Furthermore the practice is a criterion of truth and I can assure you that an uncontrolled electric discharge at the end of afore mentioned technological process could produce patterns and craters which were not necessarly continuous but often jumping or skipping over the surface and leaving a discontinous but clear trace. IMHO this is clearly what we see here: https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asse%20...%2010mpix.jpg

I am still puzzling how electric discharges can excavate rills or trenches and then produce another series of craters inside the very same rilles or trenches but that is what happened in uncontrolled processes.

I have drawn pictures of the mistakes in the metal at this time three about decades ago but was stupid enough to refuse to get my manuscript back when it was offered to me by the University after de-classification (Nur für den Dienstgebrauch - lowest classification) some time later. I was more interested in my new girl-friend at this time, I guess.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Crater on Moon

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:29 am

Ralph Juergens wrote: But if interplanetary electric discharges may be considered natural phenomena with driving potentials upward of 100 billion volts, they would appear capable of accelerating heavy ions to energies quite adequate to produce a variety of radioactive isotopes at "cathode" impact sites.

I totally agree that electrostatic discharges can fuse heavy elements, and this has been proved by subsequent research in terrestrial lightning, as well as solar flares. But I don't think that the radial patterns around impact sites are evidence of discharges. The main reason is that discharge paths are never so regular -- they are tortuous paths that follow the conductivity, modulated by their own internal instabilities. In other words, Lichtenberg figures are never perfect radial patterns. So I think that the radial patterns are evidence of relativistic ejecta from thermonuclear explosions, pinched into jets.

Lloyd wrote:Juergens' Rille Features Table

I added this to my Comets, Asteroids, and Meteoroids page, and I added my "impact crack" hypothesis to the list being compared. Now I'm considering the factors that would differentiate that from the discharge hypothesis.

Lloyd wrote:About halfway down the page at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm Juergens showed a picture of a 40 foot long "Earth rille" known to have been carved by lightning on a baseball diamond in Florida during a game. A little below that picture he showed this table of lunar rille features, which strongly suggests to me that lightning likely carved the rilles on the Moon.

This kind of thing doesn't have craters, or if they do, the craters are dwell point in a semi-continuous etching, not distinct craters that just happen to be positioned along a rille.

Lloyd wrote:Do you contend that impacters would produce thermonuclear explosions at points of impact, which would leave craters with clean floors free of debris?

Yes. In the case of an impacter that breaks up, the individual pieces would hit at pretty much the same time, so there isn't going to be debris from one accumulating in another crater -- in the relevant timeframe, all of the ejecta are traveling outward. If they are relativistic jets, they aren't going to form debris anyway -- it will all be plasma.

Bomb20 wrote:a) Why did the highlands solidify first? (Do we really need solidification for an explanation?)
b) And why do we have highlands at all?
c) What time was „at that time“? (How old?)
d) Why did the impacter population change?
e) Why did the time of big impactors come to an end?
f) And why is there a difference between big craters and little craters in distribution at all?
g) Where did the bombardment come from?

Those are excellent questions. Also, I'm not convinced that all of them would necessary get answered by a singular model. So a likely answer to one question shouldn't constrain the range of possibilities for other questions. Each answer has to be independently verified. Then all of the answers will (one day) fit together into a description of one or more processes responsible for what we see now.

Bomb20 wrote:Nevertheless I have some reasons to resist the suggestion that „round craters were squashed into oval craters by tectonics“ on Moon. At first we have to keep in mind that tectonism is lacking on Moon. It is believed that the Moon has been essentially inactive since at least 3 billion years! Therefore your suggestion implies that we are looking at a primeval artifact. I don´t share this idea.

I don't have a problem imagining that the Moon once was fully molten, and that as it started to cool, a thin crust formed, which could have been cracked by impacters. I also do not have a problem imagining that there were pseudo-tectonics going on, with the thin crust shifting around, and occasionally forming pressure ridges, which we see in those cases where the craters are oval, and lined up with the rille. My problem with that idea is understanding how such features could be preserved for so long. Is there absolutely no erosion on the Moon? So I don't consider that answer to be final.

Bomb20 wrote:It also escapes me how a round crater could be transformed into an oval crater without displaying any major fractures or demolitions on its structure. It is not made of rubber!

That's a good point. And in cases where the crack opened up, why doesn't the crack run through the crater, assuming that the impact cracked the crust? I'd expect the crater to get carved at the instant of impact, and then for the crack to open up. In cases where the "plates" pushed together, why isn't there just a pressure ridge through the crater, like outside the crater? How could the crust be brittle enough to fracture, and yet plastic enough to deform a circular crater into an oval?

Bomb20 wrote:Furthermore the practice is a criterion of truth and I can assure you that an uncontrolled electric discharge at the end of aforementioned technological process could produce patterns and craters which were not necessarily continuous but often jumping or skipping over the surface and leaving a discontinuous but clear trace.

I'm not totally convinced that this is wrong, but I'm not 100% sold either. :)

BTW, can you try re-posting the link that you mentioned there?
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 Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:36 am

Here's an example of the spiraling I mentioned.

Lunar_North_Pole_from_Gigapan_05.jpg


I'll be looking for a better place to store large-sized graphics online than I used to use (long story, let's just skip that for now), but I think anyone looking at the main site's Gigapan images can probably see what I'm talking about.

Of course, please let me know if you can't see them, or if you think I'm hallucinating!
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:43 am

To me the lunar poles seem to have had more activity, the craters seem to be of higher density, and the regions just somehow look more 'chewed up'. I have asked on some other sites why the poles would have had more activity, and they said that they don't see any higher activity, and that it is just an effect of the lighting. IF the poles had undergone more activity, surely that would indicate it was not the work of impactors, wouldn't it? Anyone else see more activity at the poles?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby chrimony » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:33 pm

Shelgeyr wrote:Not only are there crater chains galore, but... a great many of them SPIRAL around the pole.


I noticed a spiral pattern when the Chinese satellite Chang'e 1 released microwave pictures of the Moon's poles in 2010. Not only did I see a spiral at the North pole in the direction you have indicated, I saw a spiral in the opposite direction on the South pole.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby Bomb20 » Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:42 am

It is obvious that both poles display sharper, more dense packed and bigger craters, Shelgeyr. However, the sharpness can be blamed on better light conditions around the poles.

The poles are situated in highlands and a recent study

(Here: http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/global-distribution-of-large-lunar-craters-implications-for-resurfacing-and-impactor-populations - see discussion New Craters on Moon as well)

has proven that more bigger craters are situated in highlands. However, if you read the text then you will already see the arguments of the NASA. One can simply claim that craters should/would be equally distributed all over the Moon but the molten areas of the big impacts in the basins did not keep the structures of the impacts in the basins. Therefore they will conclude that north pole and south pole are not proof for any electric model of impacts by discharges.

By the way I am not sure if I can see spirales and apologists of standard cosmology will surely not see any spirales. However, I think the most of the bigger craters on the Moon could have an EM parentship.
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 23, 2014 3:26 am

CC wrote:
I don't have a problem imagining that the Moon once was fully molten, and that as it started to cool, a thin crust formed


Neither do I! However, I have - like you - a problem with the preservation of certain features over eons. Many people think that lack of water and earth-like winds would exclude every erosion on Moon but some consider moonquakes as a source of erosion and I think that we have to consider the opportunity of electric erosion all the time. And I see (to me) very familiar patterns which indicate EM causes and not crusts shifting around and forming of pressure rifts.

Bomb20 wrote:It also escapes me how a round crater could be transformed into an oval crater without displaying any major fractures or demolitions on its structure. It is not made of rubber!

That's a good point. And in cases where the crack opened up, why doesn't the crack run through the crater, assuming that the impact cracked the crust? I'd expect the crater to get carved at the instant of impact, and thenfor the crack to open up. In cases where the "plates" pushed together, why isn't there just a pressure ridge through the crater, like outside the crater? How could the crust be brittle enough to fracture, and yet plastic enough to deform a circular crater into an oval?


Indeed, and therefore I am convinced that we see traces of EM discharges at work and not cracking crust and re-shaped craters. By the way I remember a feature on Mars (?) where a 'crack' is running through a crater, crater walls and crater floor alike, but also in this case it is obvious to me that EM forces cut a channel in the landscape and the whole crater in two pieces.


Bomb20 wrote:Furthermore the practice is a criterion of truth and I can assure you that an uncontrolled electric discharge at the end of aforementioned technological process could produce patterns and craters which were not necessarily continuous but often jumping or skipping over the surface and leaving a discontinuous but clear trace.

I'm not totally convinced that this is wrong, but I'm not 100% sold either.


Sadly, I can neither show the pictures of afore mentioned technology nor my drawings of this time but I wonder that you are not remembering some of „dahlenaz“ pictures here. Here you can see examples of a „stick and jump“ discharges:
http://para-az.com/eltricu-lbgrp/flyback4edm/arc-skip-13168-s75.jpg

And some time ago there was a news in my country about a harmful discharge which was partly creeping, partly jumping over land and finally harmful many kilometers away from the original cloud and this happened without a rainstorm if I recall correct.

I regret that „dahlenaz“ experiments are not always getting enough feedback here but I think that has to do with the little circle of people doing real practical experiments. I also support his idea that not only huge arc discharges are of interest for the shaping of planetary surfaces.


BTW, can you try re-posting the link that you mentioned there?


By the way the link is the same as displayed before - so nothing was lost to you - but I hope it works this time: https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/3-moon/20121105_moon_lroc_crater_chain_M102443238LRC_10mpix.jpg
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 23, 2014 7:09 am

IMHO noteworthy: The Ames Vertical Gun is claimed to be able to simulate craters of impactors with speeds of up to 16 000 miles per hour - but have a look at the picture!

A 30 cm-diameter crater after test shot in Ames Vertical gun, note the „ejecta pattern“ inside (sic) the crater! And it seems there is a very little round crater in the very center of the crater.
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2007/03/14/14mar_marbles_resources/crater.jpg

The whole article in question:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/14mar_marbles/


And, please, look at another crater formed in a target that simulated the collission of the Deep Impact spacecraft´s impactor with Comet Tempel 1 (scroll down to the bottom):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/2005/comets2a.html

For me it looks like wasted money in both cases.

Is anybody aware of more pictures from this already 7 year-long lasting project?

I can not get rid off the feeling that they are not able to reproduce the features of the most Moon craters, otherwise we would see an awful lot of brilliant evidence for impact craters caused by high-speed impactors. Am I missing their ground-breaking publications?
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:31 pm

Of course I've long maintained that we have plenty of physical evidence here on Earth attesting to this phenomena. Given the very nature of this area of the Forum, I'm obviously not alone! :D

Victoria_Path_Bisecting_Nile_Delta_01_Hexagon_03_Red_Golden_Spirals_and_double_conjoined_Lituus_03__small_c.jpg
Victoria_Path_Bisecting_Nile_Delta_01_Hexagon_03_Red_Golden_Spirals_and_double_conjoined_Lituus_03__small_c.jpg (48.99 KiB) Viewed 7489 times
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:41 pm

chrimony wrote:
Shelgeyr wrote:Not only are there crater chains galore, but... a great many of them SPIRAL around the pole.


I noticed a spiral pattern when the Chinese satellite Chang'e 1 released microwave pictures of the Moon's poles in 2010. Not only did I see a spiral at the North pole in the direction you have indicated, I saw a spiral in the opposite direction on the South pole.


Thanks for the GizMag link! I see what you mean, and I think the evidence pointing towards "Hey, we're NOT hallucinating!" is getting stronger and stronger.
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby nick c » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:31 pm

It certainly looks like a spiral to me, but I expect that mainstream is probably going to label that as a simple case of Pareidolia!
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: New Gigapan picture of the Moon's North Pole

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:02 am

The Gigapan picture is also in Don Scotts paper >http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf

"Figure 10. The north pole region of our Moon. Note the deep crater in the exact center and the surrounding
rings of craters that grow shallower with increasing distance from the pole."


I can see the spiral too.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest