## Why are the moons craters all the same depth?

Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:40 am

realorfake wrote:If there is a "range" in which the depths of the craters fall in then doesnt this imply that not all depths are the same?

Does a 1 mile crater have a 1.2 - 2 mile depth? Absolutely not. Just like a 1 meter crater doesnt have a depth of 1.2-2 miles.

Seems to me the smaller the crater the more shallow the depth...

Am I missing something?

the way i see it is an object say 1 mile in diameter travelling incredibly fast... 40000 mph say... wouldnt leave a 1 mile wide crater... it would be quite a bit wider because of the kinetic energy / force of the impact... that energy is transferred into the surrounding area and the affected material is ejected / incinerated... likewise... the diameter of the object also has an impact (pardon the pun) on the depth of the crater... the wider the object... the deeper the crater

however... when u have a crater that is 2 miles deep and 20 miles accross... that doesnt really add up... unless the object that hit the surface was 15 miles accross and travelling at a very slow velocity... so less kinetic energy was tranferred into the surrounding area... you can liken this to how the balls react when you play snooker... you twat the cue ball and whatever it hits is gonna get a massive transfer of the cue balls energy... hit it gently and theres miminal energy transference

the moon craters are really wierd

GET IT FUCKING LEARNED BEFORE ITS TOO LATE...

http://brianhaw.tv/index.php/legal?start=3

Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:40 am

LowSix wrote:OK , so perfectly round doesn't account for specificity of my implication...

Ill rephrase.

Why do all meteor strikes create mostly round (at least by peripheral radial examination) craters? If there are glancing blows, as certainly there must be or blows at wider angles then 90º, why are there not oblong craters?

You really think all meteorites come into the planet at a perfect 90º angle to create Round-ish or concentric impact marks?

Ill venture to say that they dont..so why are all the craters round-ISH..instead of say..oblong (since there is no atmosphere to deflect or slow angular strikes)?

very good point there six ... if an object came in on a shallower angle... ie 10-30 degrees or so... then that would leave an awfully long scar on the surface... and theres a good chance if the object was large enough... that it would still be visable above the ground as it wouldnt of buried itself completely

GET IT FUCKING LEARNED BEFORE ITS TOO LATE...

http://brianhaw.tv/index.php/legal?start=3

Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:59 am

I'm sure theres an equation that can calculate just how deep and wide a crater will be depending on size, speed, density of the meteor.

I think the issue here is we imagine that there would be a large random plot of points if we were to correlate crater depths to their respective meteors size/speed but I guaruntee if you were to plot the points you'd find that there is no randomness, meaning that the speed and size of a meteor should dictate a predictable outcome.

It just so happens that the majority of crater depths are shallower than 2 miles implying as you approach a certain size/speed the crater depth only changes incrementally. Graphically this would look like a line leveling off.

Nothing out of the ordinary.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Posts: 10861
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:36 pm

realorfake wrote:Nothing out of the ordinary.

other than THEY ARE ALL ROUND....lol

hmmm..

Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:59 am

@low

Most craters are round because of the kinetic energy associated with the collision. The angle of approach does not foreshadow the way the crater will appear once a certain kinetic energy is established.

A meteor traveling 80,000 mph will simply blow up the ground it hits. Its trajectory will be difficult to assess simply because it takes a back seat to the massive energy released.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:40 am

i know this is a bit off topic but...

i just stumbled accross this image... ignore what the text says that not the reason im posting it... look at the tripod... there seems to be some sort of 'colour' chart on it... that seems shows a pale shade or red...

i remember seeing the colour corrected images of mars that were created by comparing images from earth and mars of the r g b ? coloured arrows around the manual joystick controller

if someone has photoshop skills do u reakon that its possible to do it with this image ?... or is the red colouring a just trick of the light ?

GET IT FUCKING LEARNED BEFORE ITS TOO LATE...

http://brianhaw.tv/index.php/legal?start=3

Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:59 am

realorfake wrote:@low

Most craters are round because of the kinetic energy associated with the collision. The angle of approach does not foreshadow the way the crater will appear once a certain kinetic energy is established.

A meteor traveling 80,000 mph will simply blow up the ground it hits. Its trajectory will be difficult to assess simply because it takes a back seat to the massive energy released.

If the angle of approach is severe like say 10-20 degrees then depending on the meteor it can leave an elliptical crater. And they're not that rare either, the thing is we glance at them and automatically assume theyre round.
Many are slightly elliptical.

Sorry, couldnt find a better pic, it looks like its distorted but google elliptical crater and you'll get one.

Last edited by Realorfake on Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
How many times must you honk your horn and say fuck you?
Now what the fuck does that do?
You feel better now, I didnt let you pass.
How bout I stop my car and beat your fuckin' ass?

Posts: 10861
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:36 pm

huge1234 wrote:i know this is a bit off topic but...

i just stumbled accross this image... ignore what the text says that not the reason im posting it... look at the tripod... there seems to be some sort of 'colour' chart on it... that seems shows a pale shade or red...

i remember seeing the colour corrected images of mars that were created by comparing images from earth and mars of the r g b ? coloured arrows around the manual joystick controller

if someone has photoshop skills do u reakon that its possible to do it with this image ?... or is the red colouring a just trick of the light ?

HAH, great catch, ill be with you in a minute to show that the true color should be..

Awesome Huge
Last edited by Lowsix on Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:28 am

The moon's craters vary in size, SHAPE and DEPTH.

Some were so powerful they almost cracked the moon in half.

The illusion they are all round comes from the prominent craters that were created when the moon was still molten from its formation like rocks hitting a pond. The craters formed after the molten stage have jagged edges and some even have the appearance of snake like structures. Those impacts after the moon cooled were usually from smaller objects so many actually impacted inside larger round craters.

Almost all the craters have had some form of sediment fill depending on the location.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:40 am

Hexagonal Craters on Mercury

01/27/2008

In my recent essay The Craters are Electric, I enumerated many examples of craters on celestial bodies that cannot be explained within the traditional geologic toolkit. One strikingly anomalous crater-type is the hexagonal crater, a feature observed on many planets and moons throughout the solar system. Obviously, the impact hypothesis never envisioned hexagonal cratering patterns, nor have impact experiments ever suggested any kinetic force that might generate such a form.

Our planetary neighbors provide an endless "laboratory in space" in which to test the electric cratering hypothesis. Presently, the planet Mercury is under close scrutiny, with scientists working on NASA's MESSENGER mission analyzing more than 1200 images returned from the recent flyby. In the image above, we see a central crater that NASA describes as "intriguing." In its center is a telephone shape that NASA calls a "collapse feature," which according to standard thinking is caused by volcanic activity. The NASA website makes no mention, however, of the crater's hexagonal form (and the hexagon-shape of other craters in the image as well.)

Although NASA routinely describes the telephone shape as a "collapse feature," it needs to be said that no evidence exists to support this explanation. NASA suggests that the shape could "reflect past volcanic activity at and just below the surface" of the crater. But again, for this interpretation there is literally no evidence. And if NASA scientists are forced to such implausible explanations, it is only because of their complete disinterest in the electrical hypothesis. It raises the specter of the earlier debate between geologists and astronomers over a volcanic or impact origin of craters on the Moon. William Morris Davis once pointed out with wry humor that "astronomers tended to explain the craters of the moon by volcanic action, a geologic process, while geologists tended to explain them by meteoritic action, an astronomic process-each scientist evidently feeling free to take liberties with a field other than his own." W M Davis, 1922, Origin of Coon Butte. It was finally decided by "a show of hands."

Upon seeing this image, some in the Thunderbolts group were instantly reminded of the polar vortex configurations seen on both Venus and Saturn. According to the leading proponent of the Electric Universe, Wallace Thornhill, these spiral vortexes are due to concentrated electric current flows along the magnetic field direction to the poles. They show precisely the configuration and motion of Birkeland current filaments in plasma discharge experiments. It was Thornhill's understanding of the electrical nature of the vortexes that led him to explicitly predict that BOTH of Saturn's poles would be hot -- a WILDLY unconventional prediction that was recently CONFIRMED.

Above are images of vortex formations formed in cylindrical particle beams. Over a century ago, the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland produced vortex structure and vortex interactions in charged particle beams through low vacuum in his "terrella" cathode experiments. The circular pattern in the discharge will switch to a polygon as parallel Birkeland current filaments in the cylinder are drawn together by long-range attractive electromagnetic forces and short-range repulsive forces causing them to rotate in pairs and form vortices. At the center of the hexagonal crater is the pattern formed by the twin filaments of the central Birkeland column, which has created the strange cratering pattern similar to the complex central vortex seen at the Venusian pole.

As Thornhill noted in his recent piece, "2008-Year of the Electric Universe," Jupiter has also been found to have a hexagonal cloud collar at its north pole, and the planet's Great Red Spot "occasionally shows clear hexagonal morphology, too." Also, some galaxies exhibit hexagonal structure within a circular arc, and show the characteristics of "diocotron instabilities" in their spiral arms. In other words, in an Electric Universe, we should expect to see the polygonal structures observed in planetary atmospheres (particularly the polar regions), and similar forms aligned to the axes and along the arms of some galaxies.

From the Electric Universe perspective, hexagonal craters like the ones seen above are the telltale signs of electrical scarring in an earlier epoch of planetary instability,and vastly more intense electrical activity. Whereas the impact hypothesis has failed completely either to predict or to explain the dominant crater features on planets and moons, experimental (electrical) plasma science provides a hypothesis whose success continues to grow with new observations.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/012708_hexagonal_craters.htm

so in theory... particle beam weapons could create hexagonal craters

GET IT FUCKING LEARNED BEFORE ITS TOO LATE...

http://brianhaw.tv/index.php/legal?start=3

PreviousNext

• Related topics
Replies
Views
Last post