moon craters

[moonkoon]

Hi,
I'm new here.
Thanks for this is a very interesting site.
I have a question, apologies if it has been covered, but I couldn't find any thing about it using the search function.
My query is about the circular nature of all the moon craters that I have looked at.
That they are all circular suggests that all the objects impacting the moon struck perpendicular to the surface.
The impact angle is always 90 degrees.
I would expect most of them to be elongated, because the objects would have some forward velocity as well as vertical velocity (wrt the surface).
The circular nature of the craters also means that all the impacting objects hit in the middle of the "bull's eye", there are no off center "glancing" impacts.
Maybe you could expect smaller objects to impact vertically, but the chances of all of the larger ones doing this must be vanishingly small.

[Osmosis]

Welcome, moonkoon ! You have noticed something, which has been ignored by most astronomers! Keep looking. Take a good look at the Thunderbolts.info Archives. Also, try to get a copy of "The Electric Sky". Have fun !

[GaryN]

The first time I saw Hyperion, I thought exactly the same thing, that all the 'impacts' seem to be heading for the center of the moon. Maybe all those 'impacts' caused the moon to have the most erratic rotation observed for any moon, as all those 'bulls eyes' couldn't have been scored with it moving around like it does.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... perion.htm

http://www.nineplanets.org/hyperion.html

If this object doesn't scream electricity, I don't know what does.

[moonkoon]

Thanks for your encouragement, Osmosis.
I am wondering why this idea hasn't seeped into the astronomical consciousness.
The dearth of anything but circular craters and the apparent lack of ejected material (even the few with "rays", as is pointed out elsewhere on this great site, don't stand much scrutiny, they don't "radiate", they are tangential as if formed by something that is rotating) would seem to rule of the idea that the craters are formed by impacts.
The "thunderbolt" idea makes a lot more sense.
The other possibility is that some of them at least are the result of subsidence caused by something or other.
There seem to be two distinct types of crater, the wide flat bottomed ones, often with stepped sides (suggesting sinking) and the smaller variety that look like an inverted cone.
Am I right in thinking that both polar regions have more pock marks that the equatorial regions?

GaryN, yes , scoring a "bulls eye" every time and from all directions is a bit too much for me to swallow, way too far-fetched to rate as an explanation of how the moon got its features.

The stark difference between the topography of the earth and the moon suggests to me that we got together after the electrical(?) activity subsided.

[moonkoon]

GaryN, I just had a look at Hyperion, I see what you mean.
No way those could be impact craters.
Out-gassing perhaps, but not impact craters.

[Osmosis]

Hi moonkoon, you will also find some stepped craters, throughout the Solar System, which appear to have spiraled walls. How is this done with "impacts"
Best-Osmosis

[nick c]

Hello moonkoon,

My query is about the circular nature of all the moon craters that I have looked at.
That they are all circular suggests that all the objects impacting the moon struck perpendicular to the surface.

I have asked this question and been told that impacts do make a circular formation unless the impactor came in at an extreme angle. I was told that there are studies supporting this. I think that this may be another case of mainstream coming up with the conclusions they need to salvage a weak theory. I don't know what a close scrutiny of said studies would reveal. I'm with you, there are way too many circular craters.
The choice has traditionally been between vulcanism and impacts. The EU offers another choice, Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM), which explains the morphology of craters found throughout the solar system. Interestingly, many craters that appear at casual glance to be circular, upon close inspection are actually hexagonal, this is an even bigger problem for a impact hypothesis. Furthermore, the EDM process is reproducible in a lab:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rqQnUCiWQo

Have you checked out the Tpod section on craters?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00sub ... tm#Craters
There are plenty of links to various Tpod's on the subject.

nick c

[moonkoon]

Hi, nick c.
Not all craters are created equal.

Here is a bit of practical advice on crater analysis.

Crater Analysis and Reporting.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 2/appb.htm

They lend themselves to analysis because they can contain directional information.

I have looked at a few other moons of Jupiter, Saturn etc. and they all have circular cratering too.
(The shallow, flat-bottomed type seem to be the most popular.)
So it is not just our moon that has the "bulls eye" problem.

There is also a problem with lines of craters superimposed on the "rays" surrounding the big Phobos crater, similar to the crater chain in the Hyginus Rilles on the moon.
(see links below)
These features are more likely due to a sputtering electrical discharge than random impacts.
I guess this has already been noted here, haven't had time to look at all of the site yet.

One other thing I noticed, the icy moon of Saturn, Tethys, is peppered with lots of craters, and craters on craters, presumably claimed to be all made by flying rocks, so where are all the rock fragments?
Not one to be seen, there should be a bit of debris lying around.
http://wanderingspace.net/wp-content/up ... tethys.jpg

I would like to know why the astronomical world clings to the very improbable impact theory.
Their story is full of holes.

[moonkoon]

The missing links...

http://wanderingspace.net/category/mars/phobos/
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/L ... nodash.jpg

[nick c]

hi moonkoon,
Interesting links, especially the one on how to find the direction to the source of an artillery shell. Obviously those craters bear little resemblence to craters found on celestial bodies.
Another mechanism for crater formation, that I did not mention, is bubbling. That some craters could be collapsed bubbles or domes, and there are some domes on the moon, this would be a subcase of volcanism. The EDM explanation seems to be the best for most instances. However, I would expect that there would be occaisional impacts as well as some instances of collapsed bubbles.

I would like to know why the astronomical world clings to the very improbable impact theory.
Their story is full of holes.

My opinion...[url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformita ... _(science)]uniformitarianism[/url2].
The impact theory allows them to postulate impacts as rare events that occurred randomly spread out over eons and eons, and/or, a bombardment that occurred in the early history of the solar system. Electrical Discharge Machining is non-uniformitarian because the forces required are not observed today, at least on the scale needed to produce the cratered, rilled, rayed, and scarred surfaces of planets and moons; that is put another way, EDM implies planetary catastrophism, as well as an Electric Universe. These ideas do not sit well with mainstream

nick c

[moonkoon]

nick c says,

Obviously those craters bear little resemblance to craters found on celestial bodies...

.

That's right, and we know for sure that the craters depicted in the link are real craters.

The complete lack of similarity between the real craters and many of the features visible on moons, and some planets (Mercury, etc.) must cast doubt on the claim that they too are impact craters.

I agree that the gradualism concept has outlived its usefulness.
Our myths say otherwise, and, to my mind, they have more credibility than agenda driven "scientific" theories.
Besides, even the flying rocks theory would take on a catastrophic tinge for those standing under one of the incoming objects.

[moonkoon]

A site with some suggestions about crater chains.
http://www.craterchains.com/

The current mainstream explanation is that they are mostly due to "string of pearls" comets à la Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html
That may explain a few widely spaced strings, but it doesn't convincingly explain the craters chains that follow meandering rilles, or the craters that abut to each other along a string.

A spectacular view of Stickney crater on Phobos here.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0804/PS ... ickney.jpg

Phobos is famous for its crater chains.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994P&SS...42..519M
This paper proposes that they are "...secondary impact craters, caused by debris ejected from a number of separate primary impacts on Mars."
Just one of a number of proposals about their origin.(cont.)

[moonkoon]

Note also that the nearside half of the Stickney Crater rim is rounded and sloping while the opposite half of its circumference is angular and steep.
The sloping side also has more secondary cratering,
It is like the topography of the two halves was formed by by two different events.

Another interesting crater chain here.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971209.html

[ColdCowboy]

I am very intrigued by this, and I can't believe that I never noticed before what was plain to see. I was very keen on cosmology and the universe in school, and I read every library book or listened to audio tapes,etc. I remember being thrilled by Hawkings stuff and especially Michio Kakus book Hyperspace, and now I'm finding out that it was all purely conjecture. One funny example, as a young kid I had a audio tape made by Bushnell that came with a telescope, and among the songs and talks, a cheezy song called (get this) "A Comet is nothing but a Dirty Snowball"! Hah, now I know better, and I am in disbelief at the extent of the deception, nearly all pervasive, filling young minds with junk science.

A researcher I learned from named Alan Watt (not Watts) has said that there is always 3 levels of science, with anything from professorship down being Level 1, the mil-grade/black ops/CIA gear being Level 2, and Level 3 being superior to that. As time goes on, the technolgy and knowledge filters down, but nothing is given to the lower levels of science that is not already obsolete by a higher level, and that is how TPTB never lose control, even when empires fall. I think what you guys are on to is the basis of true science, the fundamentals for higher level stuff. That is why the establishment must continue to promote paid experts to flog the 'idiot' science theory to the masses. You guys know this.

Anyway, I think that this observable fact is a very accessible argument that can be made to non-scientists/experts that can put a crack in the stone wall of indoctrinated views of the universe. The average guy might get unsettled by this, and start to ask more questions, and become a non-subscriber to the standard model!

I am going to use this argument to rattle some cages!

[moonkoon]

As good summary about crater features here.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... 05moon.htm

I found this page while looking for info about crater pairs, they are surprisingly common.