Help Us Explain Crater Formation!

[platyhelminth]

* There are several geologists associated with EU. EU is a result of interdisciplinary collaboration. If your conclusions were correct, I'm sure our geologists would have noticed the same thing long ago.

The geological map of chad seems quite clear. You see clearly successive layers organized in chronological order. The sand dunes cover a part of this chad anticline, this dune is recent as shown in the geological map. http://img709.imageshack.us/i/geolchad.jpg

In an Anticline, the center part should be older layers and the outer parts should be younger layers. This should be true for both ciruclar and linear Anticlines. Also, anticlines are real geological structure you can explore their under-earth with geolophysical methods. They have a huge economical importance, because the lower layer of the crust will naturaly become exposed closer to the surface. Thats why anticline's science is usefull for oil exploration.

A way to prove moon's, mars's (and earth's) crater are realy anticlines is that the center layers should be older and the outer layers younger. if it is not the case, you may suspect it is not an anticline. The definitive proof would be under-earth geophysical exploration or mining (= direct exploration).

What is the name of EU's geologists ?

* Numerous TPODs point out evidence that conventional dating methods, including all radioactive decay methods, are extremely inaccurate. C14 is the most accurate, but can be centuries off too.

As I said before all the geological maps are consistent with understandable geological pattern. Absolutly no traces of " Therefore, if a multi-billion joule electric discharge, sufficient to excavate a crater 19 miles in diameter were to strike the earth, the gamma and x-ray pulses would drastically alter the decay rate, the isotopic ratios and, perhaps, form new elements within the rocks."
Imagine a seconde, you want to trigger a nuclear reaction inside a rock... a bit crazy.
Additionaly this would have made the life of geologists impossible, remember they are using all their knowledge to extract oil and mineral. Anticline's science is very significant for oil.

Conclusion, despite inaccuracies (which are not extreme, a 300million year old rock has no way to be just 30million year old) radio-dating is consistant with other geological measurements, geological maps, mining activity etc

[platyhelminth]

"the gamma and x-ray pulses would drastically alter the decay rate, the isotopic ratios and, perhaps, form new elements within the rocks. "
Imagine a seconde, you want to trigger a nuclear reaction inside a rock... a bit crazy.
Additionaly this would have made the life of geologists impossible, remember they are using all their knowledge to extract oil and mineral. Anticline's science is very significant for oil.

Conclusion, despite inaccuracies (which are not extreme, a 300million year old rock has no way to be just 30million year old) radio-dating is consistant with other geological measurements, geological maps, mining activity etc

Last point, and important point. Any chemist would say you that chemical liaisons in a molecule need much less energy to break up than atoms. The molecules would have been broken with lower energy level.
So you would have to have a dramatic chemical reaction of molecules before a nuclear reaction... This is completly unrecorded, the geochemical and geophysical foot-print would have been easily found.

( geology provide oil and minerals upon which the entire modern civilization is based, young earth creationism provide nothing. So any science theorist should stay away from young earth creationist's arguments, the whole geology field prove they are false. Young earth creationists should stop to buy oil's fuel because when they do that, they give money to geologists )

Finaly, I found an image explaining well how regional anticlines (quite big anticlines) are organised. see http://www.discoveret.org/etgs/trips/ch ... anooga.htm

The center is made of older layers. right outer layers are making multiple parallel cliffs, left outer layers make at least 2 cliffs.

See also : http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonf ... index.html
Very interresting.

EU theorist should help the geologists to explain to power behing continental drift (not contestable due to geological maps showind an ancient connection between continents), the rift system (once again not contestable. because measured day by day), anticline (who are result of under earth pressure. EU theorist could help to understand how and why the under-earth is pushing here)

[Lloyd]

* Platy, my sources tell me this.
- Neither synclines, nor anticlines, eroded or otherwise, form circular depressions, except rarely. [They're almost always distorted and are not very circular.]
- Only domed structures form craters, but they are neither anticlines nor synclines.
- Electrically formed craters would have a shattered basement, but the ratio of shatter-depth to ring diameter should be much less, than with bolide impacts.
- Depth-to-diameter ratios are greater for electric craters, and cannot be explained by gravitational collapse theories.
- The presence of impact minerals should almost never be present in erosion-related depressions, such as you describe, but should be present with electric discharge impacts. [Such minerals include shocked quartz, shattercones, tektites, glass etc.]
- See Steve Smith's presentation at http://www.worldsci.org/php/DimDimFlash ... php?id=322.
* You said: EU theorist should help the geologists to explain to power behing continental drift....
* Cardona already has done that at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =30#p44388 and somewhat elsewhere in that thread. He said Saturn flares caused Earth's rotation to rapidly decelerate before returning to a more normal rate more slowly. The braking of Earth's rotation caused continents to slide over the Moho layer. There's a lot more on the effects and evidence of continents' sliding at this thread: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1462.

[starbiter]

I've responded to Platy's mention of anticlines and synclines on the dune thread.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 350#p52350

The date is May 24, 2011

[Prabhapati]

Richat structure - and the two other structures simialr to it that run north by north east - forensic evidence of the 'catastrophe' senario-

[Prabhapati]

Hello and thank you for all the replies - one thing right away - I don't consider the Richat structure as a crater and never intended to have any form or diagnosis under that prescriptive consideration. It is a formation completely unlike anything else withfeatures that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the imprint of an impact - THUNDERBOLTS presentations do not include the word crater for describing such features other than when an actual meteorite hit is described or visually displayed. All othyer similar features are described as effects of electrical arcing and it is exactly that which Richat points to.

Thanks to ALL
Prabhapati

[nick c]

Hi Prabhapati,
Welcome to the forum.

THUNDERBOLTS presentations do not include the word crater for describing such features other than when an actual meteorite hit is described

I do not think that is quite correct. As you can see in the TPOD's linked later in this post, the word "crater" is used to describe formations that the Electric Universe attributes to electrical sculpting, not meteor impact. For all practical purposes the word "crater" describes a type of surface formation on the Earth and other celestial bodies and the word does not, in itself, imply a specific cause.
Well, anyway, that is only a matter of semantics.

Here are some tpod's on the Richat crater:
Earths Richat Crater
Richat Crater Revisited
Richat Crater Revisited (2)

[Lloyd]

* I don't mean to sidetrack the Richat discussion, but I wanted to post the following item, which was sent to me by an EU geologist. It's a link to a paper that claims that rock strata below craters are broken up to various depths, due to the velocity and size etc of "impactors". I got the impression that seismic waves were used to measure whether the rock strata are broken up or not. Feel free to correct me if my impression is wrong. I don't have time to read it thoroughly. As the first pages of this thread show, I think craters are mostly electrical effects, but Cardona doesn't seem to think so. Anyway, it seems to me that the "impact" of lightning could have the same effect of breaking up lower rock layers, just as a bolide might.
* The paper is called DEPTH OF CRACKING BENEATH IMPACT CRATERS: NEW CONSTRAINT FOR IMPACT VELOCITY at http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~sue/TJA_Lin ... o_2060.pdf.

[kiwi]

Lloyd (and others).. another huge effort ,.. appreciated

[rjhuntington]

* Please gather observations and data about "impact" craters and post them on this thread

My personal observation is that virtually every photo I have seen of so-called "impact" craters shows circular craters. Perfectly circular, meaning each and every alleged "impactor" must have arrived perpendicular to the surface. How improbable is that! Impossible!

At the same time, every conceptual depiction or artist's rendering of incoming impactors shows them arriving at angles ranging from very steep to very shallow, but never vertical, which seems sensible and realistic.

So why is it that scientists, planetary or astrophysical especially, never mention that anomaly? Has no mainstream scientist even asked why all those "impact" craters are so circular?

On a recent trip across the US, I paid particular attention to canyons and craters, especially in the southwest. I saw example after example of electric arc machining of canyons. Once you know what to look for, it's so easy to spot. And once you know, you can't look at those circular craters the way you used to either.

[simple simon]

My personal observation is that virtually every photo I have seen of so-called "impact" craters shows circular craters. Perfectly circular, meaning each and every alleged "impactor" must have arrived perpendicular to the surface. How improbable is that! Impossible!

At the same time, every conceptual depiction or artist's rendering of incoming impactors shows them arriving at angles ranging from very steep to very shallow, but never vertical, which seems sensible and realistic.

So why is it that scientists, planetary or astrophysical especially, never mention that anomaly? Has no mainstream scientist even asked why all those "impact" craters are so circular?

Hi rj

I made the same point at the start of this thread and still haven't found a convincing explanation from mss (main-stream science). But I did read that the impactor is supposed to vaporize when it hits the ground and that it is the resultant explosion that leaves a circular crater, 'over-writing' the actual, elongated, impact crater.

I don't have the education to pick this to pieces in the necessary detail, but it don't convince me.

I once believed that scientific anomalies would be much sought-out by all scientists, welcomed with open-arms as opportunities to advance our understanding. That amending, perhaps even over-turning the accepted paradigm towards a better, was the aim and purpose of science. Boy, was I naive.

If it wasn't for the internet and sites like thunderbolts .......

[starbiter]

From what i see in the deserts, most craters seem to be electrical scars, with basalt on the rims and center. The formation below is an example. It's just SW of Brandberg Massif. Brandberg was attractive, while the formation below was repulsive.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=-2 ... 4&t=h&z=11

Same with the Sinai formation below. Sinai was much hotter, melting everything.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=29 ... 3&t=h&z=18

These seem like the touch down points of a Birkeland Current. Or maybe the in and out of a thunderbolt. I'm hoping for answers or proposals from people better equipped to answer an EU question such as this.

michael

[rjhuntington]

I made the same point at the start of this thread

Hi Simon, so I see! This was my first venture in this discussion and I simply responded to the title without first reading any of the posts. If I had read them first, I would have responded to your post. Instead I made the very same point, and its a good challenge to the standard impactor model.

But I did read that the impactor is supposed to vaporize when it hits the ground and that it is the resultant explosion that leaves a circular crater, 'over-writing' the actual, elongated, impact crater.

Even if such an explosion were to take place, it would not obliterate the impactor debris. Where are the impactor remnants? If there are no impactor remnants, there was no impactor.

I once believed that scientific anomalies would be much sought-out by all scientists, welcomed with open-arms as opportunities to advance our understanding. That amending, perhaps even over-turning the accepted paradigm towards a better, was the aim and purpose of science.

I used to think that as well. What I found instead was a lot of hostility from mainstream "scientists" defending cherished notions as if they were personal property instead of doing the science to prove or disprove their theories.

It is astounding that such vaunted giants of science can be so wrong. Such smart people, so brilliant, genuine geniuses, but wrong, and unwilling to challenge their own theories.

[cigarshaped]

Interesting how the public can accept demonstrations of EDM craters, on Wiki How. So where are the recent laboratory experiments with HD video to match? This could be on the college curriculum one day.

[jjohnson]

Re: the prior 2 posts. Scientists should present evidence supporting their theories, but remember that theories are supposed to always be in a state of flux and movement forward,, or replacement altogether, and are not "proven" or "disproven" as is the case with mathematical theorems. A theory can be falsified if sufficient contrary evidence or better interpretation or new, more appropriate paradigm shows up that provides better modeling and prediction, as well as a priori explanations (like how stuff happened in time past). The EU paradigm exhibits promise in the latter category, in a wide range of scientific phenomena, not just the cosmic electrodynamics area at the heart of its interpretation.

I have wondered about the use of better HD imagery and videos, too. This is becoming easier and cheaper to do. Although still quite expensive, extremely slowed-down high-def video of lightning strokes are common on YouTube, so someone has the technology. It would be great for some of the high-voltage spark phenomena portraying electrical impact and electric discharge machining to be slowed down so that a second or two's operation could be viewed in a leisurely couple of minutes to grasp as much detail as possible. I might add that simply using a tripod and a remote instead of the shaky hand-held operations would help a lot, too.

Jim