Earth/Moon Electrical Interaction

[tolenio]

Hello,

Just an observation... Doesn't lava glow red, yellow or orange, but not white? And wouldn't molten rock take time to cool, creating a longer flash that cools through the color spectrum?

Tom

[longcircuit]

Although I'm comfortable acknowledging that the January 2008 explosion may well be due to a meteor impact, I'd like to propose a test to prove it: if we have earthbound and/or orbital telescopes capable of resolutions high enough to get a good photo (or video) of the explosion site, would we be able to see not only the impact crater, but also any rays of ejecta? If so, we should be able to verify that the rays will point to the center of the crater.
Two further questions:
1. If no rays (or other evidence of impact) are present, what happens to the impact theory?
2. If rays are present that, as in the case of Tycho, do not point directly to the crater's center, what happens to the impact theory?

longcircuit

[Grey Cloud]

Although I'm comfortable acknowledging that the January 2008 explosion may well be due to a meteor impact, I'd like to propose a test to prove it: if we have earthbound and/or orbital telescopes capable of resolutions high enough to get a good photo (or video) of the explosion site, would we be able to see not only the impact crater, but also any rays of ejecta? If so, we should be able to verify that the rays will point to the center of the crater.
Two further questions:
1. If no rays (or other evidence of impact) are present, what happens to the impact theory?
2. If rays are present that, as in the case of Tycho, do not point directly to the crater's center, what happens to the impact theory?

longcircuit

Thinking along the same lines: How long, given the moon's atmosphere, would the ejecta take to dissipate after 'impact'? Would a dust cloud not be visible for a certain period?

[JJ78]

Although I'm comfortable acknowledging that the January 2008 explosion may well be due to a meteor impact, I'd like to propose a test to prove it: if we have earthbound and/or orbital telescopes capable of resolutions high enough to get a good photo (or video) of the explosion site, would we be able to see not only the impact crater, but also any rays of ejecta? If so, we should be able to verify that the rays will point to the center of the crater.
Two further questions:
1. If no rays (or other evidence of impact) are present, what happens to the impact theory?
2. If rays are present that, as in the case of Tycho, do not point directly to the crater's center, what happens to the impact theory?

longcircuit

I think a test is definitely a good idea, although I am not so convinced that 'rays of ejecta' are a 'solid' proof that we are dealing with a meteor and not a discharge phenomenon. The curious thing about the majority of craters (if not all) on the moon is that they are round. This means that if they are the result of meteor impact, the meteors hit the moon at a 90 degree angle to the surface - i.e. head on.
I believe that the only solid evidence for meteor hitting the moon could be gathered using some kind of radar based on or in orbit around the moon that tracks all objects and their trajectories. Such a radar will without doubt register such impacts if they occur. OK. With the current state of affairs in the scientific world, such a radar is probably not feasible any time soon. Or, if it was, then its data would probably be classified or tampered with in order to support the existing paradigm. Fine. Another solution is needed then...
Perhaps, if someone could fit a video camera with a very high framerate to a telescope tracking the moon. This could be an option. In this fashion it should be possible to actually see the object striking the moon. So, here the question is: what framerates are we dealing with? Are any cameras available that have this?

Comments anyone?

[MGmirkin]

Hmm. Interesting. This link is from the article in the original posting. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... oradic.htm.

[snip .. another link]
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007 ... arbles.htm

Good links. Something to chew on. The crater produced does appear to have good correspondence with a number of craters on the moon or elsewhere. Though it also seems to NOT correspond with some others.

If nothing else, it's a good reminder not to make hasty generalizations about ALL somethings based upon a small sampling of anomalies. IE, one can't necessarily say that all craters were made by electric discharges, or that none were made by impacts. It may well be that both processes are capable of the task.

I'm all for not being overly hasty or enthusiastic (though I am a bit enthusiastic at times about various topics, here or elsewhere), if evidence is available that may undermine the argument being made on either side. Science is about point / counterpoint, yes?

The question then becomes what the defining characteristics that can be used to distinguish one from the other might be...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[JJ78]

...one can't necessarily say that all craters were made by electric discharges, or that none were made by impacts. It may well be that both processes are capable of the task. ...

The question then becomes what the defining characteristics that can be used to distinguish one from the other might be...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Yes, I completely agree with you. I was just having some doubts as to whether rays of ejecta can characterise a meteor crater and not a discharge crater. In addition to that I have my doubts about the perfect round shapes of many so-called 'meteor craters'. Why aren't there any parabola shaped craters? Meteors must necessarily come from all directions... and not just from straight above...

[webolife]

With you all and your great comments. Laboratory impact tests have shown that circular craters form from nearly any angle of impact.
But where is that crater?

[JJ78]

With you all and your great comments. Laboratory impact tests have shown that circular craters form from nearly any angle of impact.
But where is that crater?

What you say about circular craters sounds very interesting. Do you have some links/references perhaps?

Cheers

[MGmirkin]

I also recall there was an article or paper published a while back about someone who used to use like a rifle or something on a private beach to test impacts at varying angles (short range and long range). I recall that the implication was that circular craters were generally formed regardless of impact angle, for the most part. Unfortunately it's been a long time since I read the article and don't recall specifics, not have a link to a cite. Might look around later and see what I can find...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I also recall there was an article or paper published a while back about someone who used to use like a rifle or something on a private beach to test impacts at varying angles (short range and long range). I recall that the implication was that circular craters were generally formed regardless of impact angle, for the most part. Unfortunately it's been a long time since I read the article and don't recall specifics, not have a link to a cite. Might look around later and see what I can find...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Nevermind, found it...

(BARRINGER "METEORITE CRATER")
http://www.barringercrater.com/science/

One objection to the idea of an impact origin for the lunar craters was the fact that all lunar craters are round. Astronomers assumed that most meteorites would have struck the moon at oblique angles, producing elongated craters. Barringer, however, had experimented by firing rifle bullets into rocks and mud, and had discovered that a projectile arriving at an oblique angle would nevertheless make a round hole. In 1923, Barringer's 12-year-old son Richard published an article in Popular Astronomy, using his father's rifle experiments to argue for the impact origin of the lunar craters; Barringer himself repeated the arguments a short time later in the Scientific American.

Ultimately, astronomers such as A.C. Gifford were able to demonstrate that the force of an impact at astronomical speeds would result in the explosion of the meteorite. Whatever the original angle of impact, the result would be a circular crater.

That's their explanation and they're sticking to it... Despite evidence which might be to the contrary...

(Meteor Crater in Arizona)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... crater.htm

In addition to the absence of any naturally occurring volcanic rock in the vicinity, he noted an abundance of finely pulveri zed silica. He also observed large quantities of meteoritic iron, in the form of globular "shale balls", scattered around the rim and surrounding plain. The surrounding soil included a random mixture of meteoritic material and ejected rocks.

[...]

Merrill also pointed to the undisturbed rock beds below the crater that proved “the force which created the crater did not come from below”.

The undisturbed rock beds below the crater contradict the standard opinion on the event that created the large pit. The report by the Meteor Crater Interactive Learning Center states: “The meteorite which made it was composed almost entirely of nickel-iron, suggesting that it may have originated in the interior of a small planet. It was 150 feet across, weighed roughly 300,000 tons, and was traveling at a speed of 28,600 miles per hour (12 kilometers per second) according to the most recent research. The explosion created by its impact was equal to 2.5 megatons of TNT, or about 150 times the force of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima”. Certainly that is not the kind of event that would leave the rock beds below the crater “undisturbed”.

[...]

One reason for believing that the crater was excavated by an electric discharge is the apparent stratification of the debris distributed by the event. A rotating, crater-producing electric arc will work down from the surface through layers of soil, spraying the material across a wide region. This could mean that the debris field would be laid down roughly in layers that reversed the strata of the surrounding terrain. So it is interesting that the Meteor Crater website confirms Barringer’s finding that “different types of rocks in the rim and on the surrounding plain appeared to have been deposited in the opposite order from their order in the underlying rock beds”.

Interesting stuff...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[bboyer]

(BARRINGER "METEORITE CRATER")
http://www.barringercrater.com/science/

One objection to the idea of an impact origin for the lunar craters was the fact that all lunar craters are round. Astronomers assumed that most meteorites would have struck the moon at oblique angles, producing elongated craters. Barringer, however, had experimented by firing rifle bullets into rocks and mud, and had discovered that a projectile arriving at an oblique angle would nevertheless make a round hole. In 1923, Barringer's 12-year-old son Richard published an article in Popular Astronomy, using his father's rifle experiments to argue for the impact origin of the lunar craters; Barringer himself repeated the arguments a short time later in the Scientific American.

Then, of course, there's always those troublesome polygonal craters like the hex. Personally, I think many would be a combination of factors such as electrical and "cymatical" (particularly under extreme conditions of stress where media could be going through rapid change-of-state conditions [plasma-gas-liquid-solid] either sequentially or simultaneously such as seen in cymatics, chladni plate, and EDM demos). Impact, electrical, (mechanical/sound) vibration.

Square craters on the moon..... from the Recovered: Hexagonal Craters thread.

[Drethon]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080521-moon-explosion.html

During meteor showers such as the Quadrantids or Perseids, when the Moon passes through dense streams of cometary debris, the rate of lunar flashes can go as high as one per hour. Impacts subside when the Moon exits the stream, but curiously the rate never goes to zero.

"Even when no meteor shower is active, we still see flashes," says Cooke.

These "off-shower" impacts come from a vast swarm of natural space junk littering the inner solar system. Bits of stray comet dust and chips off old asteroids pepper the Moon in small but ultimately significant numbers. Earth gets hit, too, which is why on any given night you can stand under a dark sky and see a few meteors per hour glide overhead — no meteor shower required. Over the course of a year, these random or "sporadic" impacts outnumber impacts from organized meteor showers by a ratio of approximately 2:1.

Wait, did they just state that dust impacting the moon has enough kinetic energy to generate a flash that we can detect? Learn something new every day...

[Grey Cloud]

I'll buy a circular hole regardless of angle of impact but a circular hole pointing straight up at the sky regardless of angle of impact?
What about meteorites that come in at such an angle that they 'skim' the surface of the moon? Wouldn't they cause some sort of effect on the surface (via eg turbulance)?

[Drethon]

Hmm, I must be blind lately, didn't see at all this topic already existed...

[MGmirkin]

Hmm, I must be blind lately, didn't see at all this topic already existed...

It happens... No biggie! ;o]

~Michael