Help Us Explain Crater Formation!

[starbiter]

Hello Shelgeyr,

I searched "relevant forces" and can't figure out Your usage of the word.

Sorry, Michael, I wasn't being clear. By "relevant forces" I was simply referring to the whole gamut ranging from EDM scarring, electrical deposition, plasma discharge "burn scars" (which I guess are a type of EDM), and IMHO electromagnetic forces which (A) I assume are strongly in play during a gigantic discharge event, and (B) are likely responsible for any (or at least "most") of the geologic features which display some sort of rotation. I like the term "geologic vortex" but I don't know if that's strictly accurate.

I wasn't trying to be overly-mystical or unclear... It is just that while we're attempting to explain crater formation I wouldn't want us to lose sight that there seems to be some pretty strong evidence that far larger structures, on a planetary scale (including - again IMHO - the planet itself) were formed by the same EM discharge forces that on a smaller scale formed craters.

To take this further, I'd like to suggest that just as a "rim crater" could be formed by an EDM "after thought" on the edge of a larger crater, and that the formation of either would have been spectacular to see (should there have been any survivors to the event), even the largest craters on our planet could probably be seen as a minor "oh, yeah, and that discharge also made that crater" type of thing compared to whatever major discharge was going on.

I'm rereading what I just wrote, and I think I've done a fairly poor job of explaining what I mean, so bear with me and I'll try to follow up in the near future with either a better explanation, or graphics, or both.

Hi Shelgeyr,

The geologic column can help us understand the process of catastrophic geology to an extent. I try to list as many options as my imagination can produce, even though i may have a preference. If basalt covers a surface it seems reasonable to assume the basalt came after whatever it covers.

Many "craters" that i see in the field have no explanation other than an attractive thunderbolt pulling in iron rich dust. A volcano is NOT an option in many cases, even with an overactive imagination.

Meteor Crater is interesting in that it has a raised rim. The rim seems to have folded up. The rim of meteor crater is the only example of folding i've seen in almost 5 years of field research. An impact might be the cause of the surrounding strata being pulled up, but i'd put my money on a thunderbolt removing the missing material. It appears to my eyes that some thunderbolts attract, and some thunderbolts repel material. Attraction seems much more common.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... NnRnc/edit

I agree that there were vortices within the massive vortex events. A chaotic bummer.


michael

[dahlenaz]

starbiter wrote:
An impact might be the cause of the surrounding strata being pulled up, but i'd put my money on a thunderbolt removing the missing material.

Is anyone willing to attempt an explanation of why only one crater is present in that area?

If certain electrical processes were involved in the formation of meteor crater in arizona or the grand canyon,
then there should be many other craters in the area. Experiments show that formation of a single crater, with no
other material disturbed around the primary discharge locations, requires conditions that most likely would not
occur where planetary interactions is involved, where relative motions is transmitted into the scar.
It might occur if a single meteor were involved by electrical interaction at the end of its life but then mechanical
processes become highly probable during the final phase of its re-entry as it looses touch with being a solid and
becomes a ball of plasma or disintigrates above the surface.
We can't assume that the area was dry when this all happened.
The lake that once occupied the area could have transfered forces efficiently into the liquified floor
of Hopi Lake. Experiments to simulate an impact-plasma state through the usage of liquid impactors
has partially demonstrated the effect of the plasma-ball impact scenario..
The image below was replicated many times over and with many variations based on water depth and
the depth of liquified material. Air blasts are easily weakened but iimpacts (by and to) fluid and semi-fluid
material give very interesting results. d...z



ttljbtg

...

[Shelgeyr]

Michael,

I don't want to derail this thread with a detailed explanation of what is admittedly my own EDM/crater/bigger-things obsession, so please take a look at the following link where I took your coordinates in Afghanistan and labeled it "Starbiter's EDM" on a graphic I threw together.

http://atomicmonkeyactionsquad.blogspot ... art-4.html

I may end up ressurecting one of my old threads on this forum in order to tack on the opus I think it will take to describe this, but I don't think here (this thread) is the correct place.

Thanks!

[starbiter]

starbiter wrote:
An impact might be the cause of the surrounding strata being pulled up, but i'd put my money on a thunderbolt removing the missing material.

Is anyone willing to attempt an explanation of why only one crater is present in that area?

If certain electrical processes were involved in the formation of meteor crater in arizona or the grand canyon,
then there should be many other craters in the area. Experiments show that formation of a single crater, with no
other material disturbed around the primary discharge locations, requires conditions that most likely would not
occur where planetary interactions is involved, where relative motions is transmitted into the scar.
It might occur if a single meteor were involved by electrical interaction at the end of its life but then mechanical
processes become highly probable during the final phase of its re-entry as it looses touch with being a solid and
becomes a ball of plasma or disintigrates above the surface.
We can't assume that the area was dry when this all happened.
The lake that once occupied the area could have transfered forces efficiently into the liquified floor
of Hopi Lake. Experiments to simulate an impact-plasma state through the usage of liquid impactors
has partially demonstrated the effect of the plasma-ball impact scenario..
The image below was replicated many times over and with many variations based on water depth and
the depth of liquified material. Air blasts are easily weakened but iimpacts (by and to) fluid and semi-fluid
material give very interesting results. d...z



ttljbtg

...

The image below shows what appears to me to be molten/lithified rock on Meteor crater rim.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-GyNP5 ... ZxQTA/edit

It appears to me that something other than water was at work here.


There are other craters that appear to be from thunderbolt removal. Ubehebe Crater in Death Valley comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubehebe_Crater

The crater below is in the neighborhood of Meteor Crater. Just zoom out.

http://goo.gl/maps/kE97Z



The link below MIGHT explain the smaller percentage of craters that leave a hole in the ground. Most craters seem to be the result of material being pulled in, from the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Positive lightning
Local variations in cloud formations can cause the bottom of a cloud to accumulate a positive charge which will induce a negative charge on the ground. Lightning can occur with both positive and negative polarity. An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes (30 kA), and transfers 15 coulombs of electric charge and 500 megajoules of energy. Large bolts of lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs.[45] An average bolt of positive lightning carries an electric current of about 300 kA — about 10 times that of negative lightning.[46]


Anvil-to-ground (Bolt from the blue) lightning strike.
Unlike the far more common "negative" lightning, positive lightning occurs when a positive charge is carried by the top of the clouds (generally anvil clouds) rather than the ground. Generally, this causes the leader arc to form in the anvil of the cumulonimbus and travel horizontally for several miles before veering down to meet the negatively charged streamer rising from the ground. The bolt can strike anywhere within several miles of the anvil of the thunderstorm, often in areas experiencing clear or only slightly cloudy skies; they are also known as "bolts from the blue" for this reason. Positive lightning makes up less than 5% of all lightning strikes.[47]

Me again,

Positive lightning might repel, while negative lightning might attract.

The "craters" below seem to be from dust that was attracted to an electrical event.

http://goo.gl/maps/D6EEb

The metamorphic rocks i see in the SW USA seem to have been created by something other than the Flood of Noah. The Gneiss that covers the granitic mountains all over AZ seems to be from external electricity, not a flood. Your reluctance to read past Genesis bewilders me Dennis. I believe in the Flood of Noah. The results of the Flood of Noah are buried by the events of Exodus, IMHO. The material that fell from the sky during Exodus glowed red hot. Are You open to Exodus as a factor? Or should the Torah read Genesis, blank?


There appears to have been a flood during Exodus also, due to a cessation of Earth's rotation. Above the waterline there was accumulation of material and heating/compression. Below the waterline was sloshing of sediment. The dust, sand, gravel, rocks, and boulders that feel from the sky were mingled with the river of fire, glowing red-hot. I still recommend reading Worlds in Collision if You haven't already.

Your experiments seem to imply a crater might be formed while an area is covered with water. Your apparent insistence on underwater crater formation confuses me. Was the Moon covered with water when the craters were created? The same question applies to other planets and moons.

michael steinbacher

[dahlenaz]

starbiter wrote:
An impact might be the cause of the surrounding strata being pulled up, but i'd put my money on a thunderbolt removing the missing material.

Your experiments seem to imply a crater might be formed while an area is covered with water. Your apparent insistence on underwater crater formation confuses me. Was the Moon covered with water when the craters were created? The same question applies to other planets and moons.

michael steinbacher

I'm not proposing underwater formation of craters...
Any standing water would have been displaced or vaporized.
Since meteor fragments are found in the area and a feature of
comparable size is near by, we may be looking at a fragmented
object on a vertical trajectory just like the ice crater formed in
Russia on the yesterday morning. d...z



The iced lake crater in Russia following the Feb 15, 2013 meteor event
...

[justcurious]

I'm not proposing underwater formation of craters...
Any standing water would have been displaced or vaporized.
Since meteor fragments are found in the area and a feature of
comparable size is near by, we may be looking at a fragmented
object on a vertical trajectory just like the ice crater formed in
Russia on the yesterday morning. d...z



The iced lake crater in Russia following the Feb 15, 2013 meteor event
...

That ice crater needs some explaining, so small, so perfect, no sign of normal violent impact. My own theory is that the meteor fell on the ice lake without breaking through or cracking the ice surface, and that the heat melted/vaporized the ice before the comet sank in the water.

One thing that seems to be very certain from the Russian meteor event of Feb 15, all the action was "before" the impact while the meteor was way above land.

[dahlenaz]

I'm not proposing underwater formation of craters...
Any standing water would have been displaced or vaporized.
Since meteor fragments are found in the area and a feature of
comparable size is near by, we may be looking at a fragmented
object on a vertical trajectory just like the ice crater formed in
Russia on the yesterday morning. d...z

The iced lake crater in Russia following the Feb 15, 2013 meteor event
...

That ice crater needs some explaining, so small, so perfect, no sign of normal violent impact. My own theory is that the meteor fell on the ice lake without breaking through or cracking the ice surface, and that the heat melted/vaporized the ice before the comet sank in the water.

One thing that seems to be very certain from the Russian meteor event of Feb 15, all the action was "before" the impact while the meteor was way above land.

Melt-through is not likely. An object in freefall,, as this "fragment" at the ice location most likely was,,, would have done far more damage if it was near to the size of the hole. We really need to do the math for height, speed, size
and other factors to determine "which fragment" hit the ice... It may not have been the last-lumineous object,,,
consider the angle of the video and the height over the viewer in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5xMYRBpLSI

If you move frame by frame through this you will see that numerous luminous objects continue beyond the flash
point. The last visible luminous object seen at 18:31:06 is still very high and way past the town. The angle looks
to put it way past the 50 mile ice-lake location. d...z

...

[justcurious]

Regardless how any object falls into/through thick Siberian lake ice, I would expect a lot of cracked ice all around. Ice on a lake cracks and shatters. I don't see how simple falling debris could have created a nice small hole like that. If it was a very hot piece of molten iron it would have certainly made a huge mess after entering the water. Must be something else. Possibly electrical or melting from above. So far according to a friend who lives 600 miles from the site, the biggest piece of meteor found so far is 18 kg. Not sure it it was the one ta the lake.

[Sparky]

Possibly electrical or melting from above.

If the meteorites were at a low trajectory, which video indicates, at the point of electrical discharge, the discharge would be perpendicular to Earth. Thus, the near perfect circular hole.

I suggest either residual charge or connection to troposphere, or both. That discharge would have exploded what fragments were left in the descending meteorite and scattered them over the ice.

[GaryN]

I think you have it pretty well correct there Sparky. If they don't find a big chunk in the lake bed, then I'd say it was an upwards discharge causing the incoming object to shatter. They say the pieces are no more than half inch in size and have some iron, but that iron could be from a conversion process occurring in that last final equalisation event.
Even if all the Lunar craters were from a heavy bombardment of impactors, the same process would occur, a perpendicular discharge giving a round crater and shattering the incoming item, resulting in all the small pieces, gravel, sand and dust around the craters, rather than it have being thrown out by an actual impacting object.

[webolife]

I'm inclined to agree with this explanation given the sparcity of bolides associated with "impact" craters in general. I supposed we still could define craters as "impact" events, even if the final stages of the formation event were a discharge explosion. This is further evidence by numerous videos of firevballs that brighten shortly before impacting, without leaving a significant crater. I'm inclined however, to see the brightened spiking in the video frames of the recent Russian meteor as a camera artifact. I couldn't see the same spiking in every angle of view in the dashboard cam compilation, et. al.

[Sparky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBvotWfR3j4

webo-:

as a camera artifact.

No sir. I was able to extract more than 20 still images, spanning the 2 sec. series of discharges. THey are not visible at video speed. I stretched the timeline and am now uploading to the http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 2&start=30

What lens, and or windshield flaring there may be does not negate the evidence of multiple discharges, sufficient in brightness to cause any anomalous flaring.

The 47 sec. to 50 sec. portion of the video is extremely strong evidence of an electric effect.

I hope TB has taken note of what evidence there is in that 3 sec.. and presents it better than I can.

[webolife]

You may be misunderstanding me... I think the exploding meteor is electrically discharging, but...
I watched the video frame by frame and I'm afraid I still see a combination of digital spiking and oversaturation, and windshield glare where you are claiming a bolt to earth. I'm not saying there wasn't some form of discharge to earth, in fact I have repeatedly suggested there was; I am saying that I don't think the video images show it.

[Sparky]

I agree.....but would prefer to keep emphasis on the obvious bright discharge, not the obvious flaring on the windshield. I think we can interpret the image as is and gain insight into an event that we may not see again.

Because of the cone of fog like brightness below the large discharge, I am leaning toward a downward discharge of glow mode at other timelines. Others my dismiss that conclusion.

Here is a quote from 1908 :

On June 30, 1908, at about 7:30 in the morning, a bolide from outer space approached the Earth's surface at the Stony Tunguska river in Siberia, and exploded. The deafening explosions were heard hundreds of miles away. A shock wave traveled twice around the Earth. From 40 miles away it was experienced as a fireball in the sky, a flash of heat, followed by a series of explosions. People were knocked down, and windows broken. ---But there was no impact, there was no crater, there was no meteor debris.

http://saturniancosmology.org/tung.php

[GaryN]

Aboriginal Oral Traditions of Australian Impact Craters

We explore Aboriginal oral traditions that relate to Australian meteorite craters. Using the literature, first-hand ethnographic records, and fieldtrip data, we identify oral traditions and artworks associated with four impact sites: Gosses Bluff, Henbury, Liverpool, and Wolfe Creek. Oral traditions describe impact origins for Gosses Bluff and Wolfe Creek craters and non-impact origins of Liverpool and Henbury craters, with Wolfe Creek stories having both impact and non-impact origins. Three impact sites that are believed to have formed during human habitation of Australia - Dalgaranga, Veevers, and Boxhole - do not have associated oral traditions that are reported in the literature.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0278

The full pdf is available from the web page.