Crater Research

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a bad Idea Stryder;

“The signal SETI missed!”
across the Calisto CS crater chain as a bumper sticker.

Just think how they will sell when a few more people finally comprehend just how un-probable that a broken space rock did these types of crater chains. Any body with half a brain and some common sense should be able to comprehend that SL9 proved that.

All too often most people just parrot the scientists and never question what they are saying. This only takes a few minutes of original thought and a good grasp of motions, alignments, and trajectories of objects in motion. One doesn’t need a micrometer or tape measure to “see” SL9 could never have coalesced into a pattern to make a CS type of crater chain. For ANY broken up space junk to do this it would have to break up in equally sized pieces, say 50 of them pieces all equally sized. Then a moon would have to slam into this string at exactly the right time so that they all strike at once as scientists agree they did all strike simultaneously.

Just shakes head, yeah, right, like I am gonna win all the lotto’s on earth for the next six months. NOW THAT IS FUNNY. FOCLMMFAO
 
Just think how they will sell when a few more people finally comprehend just how un-probable that a broken space rock did these types of crater chains. Any body with half a brain and some common sense should be able to comprehend that SL9 proved that.
Click to expand...
Hey, about that... could you explain the part about "how un-probable that a broken space rock did these types of crater chains"... considering everyone who knows physics and probabiltiy seems to disagree with you.
like I am gonna win all the lotto’s on earth for the next six months.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. You have yet to back up your statistics either.

The fact that the one breakup we've seen (Jupiter's impact) could have created crater chains (if not for a second pass) then the odds aren't nearly as bad as you suggest. Especially considering the sheer number of impacts in our system.
 
I don't know what created some of those crater chains, But I sure as heck know it was not some natural phenomena.
Like some meteor that broke up into equally spaced peices!!!!!
Thats crazy.
I have heard some one say" Throw a bunch of marbles at a low trajectory and you can get the same results".
Its not the same.
First you have to richochet them off of an object and still have them all land equally spaced.
I mean, what the heck do you think broke up that meteor.
The atmosphere on the moon?
Mars?
And to still break it up into equal parts, equally spaced.
?????????
How about a donut.
Throw a donut against a wall on an angle and try to make those peices into eqaul parts and equal distances.
Or an apple, or.......anything that is held together until acted upon by an outside force.
Again, I don't know what caused those crater chains, but.....give me a break.
No way thats natural.
 
Tidal forces. Obviously this can break things up, as we've SEEN it break things up.

We know which direction it stretches out in as well, and we know that they form a straight line. We've seen all this happen.

The only issue is the equal parts (which will naturalyl become equally spaced).The fact is that most the the crater chains he is showing are not perfect, and have some variation. It's a simple matter of probability as to when something breaks up in a uniform enough pattern.
 
moementum7 said:
I don't know what created some of those crater chains, But I sure as heck know it was not some natural phenomena.
Like some meteor that broke up into equally spaced peices!!!!!
Thats crazy.
I have heard some one say" Throw a bunch of marbles at a low trajectory and you can get the same results".
Its not the same.
First you have to richochet them off of an object and still have them all land equally spaced.
I mean, what the heck do you think broke up that meteor.
The atmosphere on the moon?
Mars?
And to still break it up into equal parts, equally spaced.
?????????
How about a donut.
Throw a donut against a wall on an angle and try to make those peices into eqaul parts and equal distances.
Or an apple, or.......anything that is held together until acted upon by an outside force.
Again, I don't know what caused those crater chains, but.....give me a break.
No way thats natural.
Click to expand...

Those photos are not equally spaced in the first place, secondly , if an object starts to break up, the same effects of gravity, trajectory, and terminal velocity (the last variable may not apply) would all effect the same pieces as they broke off. furthermore, its not impossible to have a straight line of a craiter, but unprobable more so than seen in this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/craterchain1.gif where you can see that it was a scattered effect. Its a lot easier to notice craters when there is little or no erosion, along with no vegetation.
 
I just read this , its from that website, one of the ones he linked for the picture ....

Scientists were at a loss to explain this crater chain along with several other chain like features observed on Callisto's surface. Fifteen years later, with the discovery of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, also known as the "string of pearls" comet, the mystery was solved. Comets whose orbits stray too close to Jupiter are torn apart by the strong gravity. When the individual pieces, strung out along the orbital path of the comet hit an object like Callisto, the sequence of impacts produces a crater chain.
Click to expand...

That eexplains it perfectly....
 
SL9 has been discussed and is totally irrelevant as a causality of CS crater chains as has been illustrated.

02281997_browse.jpg


calar20.gif
stringofpearls.gif


Note: for url documentation/reference just right click the image and get the url for yourself.

Another interesting aspect of this entire discussion of CS crater chains and war is that it illustrates a definite division between those that hang off every word the scientist say and write as written in stone and those that do not take what scientist say and write as written in stone but rather as written on plaster that sucks up water and falls apart.

Add to that bumper sticker:

Seti@Home
avatar8510_0.gif


:D
 
Joo and all the rest, try using your minds for reasoning.
They don’t have to be perfect little circles SpaceApe. No broken space rocks are going to form these Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains so evenly sized and spaced along a line across such a wide range of lengths and widths. You and the scientists are wishful thinkers and great denialists. :rolleyes:

You don't need a micrometer, let alone a ruler. Close DOES count in horse shoes, hand grenades, napalm, and ATOMICS.
 
The same can be said for tidally disrupted objects as well. It doesn't need to be dead on...just like all those crater chain examples. There are imperfections and those imperfections show up in the impacts.
 
LMAO. Dude, you just showed us a picture of a linear breakup. So you agree that they can form lines, right?

The only extra requirement for CS craters is that they are all about the same size. They don't have to be exact, because your craters aren't either.

This gives you a fairly good probabiity of it happeneiing.
 
There are no such things as "CS craters." This is Norval and Gale (Cunningham & Smart) attempting to gain some fame or status. They are catenae. Individual chains of craters are each a catena.

Gale said:
SL9 has been discussed and is totally irrelevant as a causality of CS crater chains as has been illustrated.
Click to expand...

SL-9 has been discussed, and is totally relevant. It demonstrated that tidal forces can, indeed, break up a comet. From that, we can infer that tidal forces can also break up asteroids, of which a signficant number are large bodies comprised of smaller ones -all held together by gravity. When the same tidal-type forces are imposed on a progenitor like an asteroid, it breaks up and forms a line of particles along the orbital path. If an asteroid were to break up and impact a moon early in it's newly formed pattern, you get exactly the kind of crater formations you've been showing us: catenae.

Not Cunningham-Smart craters. These don't exist. The two of you discovered nothing but your own imaginations.

Momentum7 said:
But I sure as heck know it was not some natural phenomena.
Like some meteor that broke up into equally spaced peices!!!!!
Thats crazy.
Click to expand...
It's only crazy if you haven't examined the evidence. In light of Norval's and Gale's fanciful speculations, I've looked at it. I can email the .pdf files of the journal articles if you're interested.

Norval said:
For ANY broken up space junk to do this it would have to break up in equally sized pieces, say 50 of them pieces all equally sized.
Click to expand...

And yet, many, if not most, of the photos you've shared with us in this and other threads show inequalities of crater sizes. From one photo to the next we also see inequalities in separation distances. This suggestive of objects at various points of separation in an orbital breakup imposed by tidal forces on the original progenitor.

The arguments in this thread are circular and Norval/Gale have yet to demonstrate anything but a willingness to seek some sort of social status, evidenced by their broad cross-posting across the internet of the same wild speculations that are met with the same rational thought processes. Rather than address specific questions that poke holes in their speculations, they choose to resort to immature attempts at humorous derision and mockery. When they are accused of being pseudoscientific they respond with calling those that disagree with them "pseudo-debunkers." But true to the pseudoscientist, they fail qualify that moniker. On the other hand, several of Norval's "psuedo-debunkers" have thoroughly demonstrated why he's being pseudoscientific.

Address specific criticisms in this thread or give us something new, Norval. The circularity of your argument isn't working.
 
Blackholesun, Persol and Skinwalker, why don't you guys give this a rest. Norval's going to repeat all his "theories" again, the way he's spreading it like propaganda through forums. His "theories" are crap, and the way he's going to win supporters isn't through reason, but through (unsuccessful) brainwashing.
 
It has been brought to my attention that some of the posters in this particular thread are "harassing" by the way they have engaged in comments and sentiment towards those that believe in this particular theory.

I suggest that perhaps those that believe they hare helping Pseudoscience by "identifying false sciences" understand that what should be really done in this forum is "identifying the real ones from the fake", and since this actual section of the overall forum suggests "false sciences" as aposed to "Protosciences", they should take the reason for the thread being here as an overall signal suggesting that the theory isn't necessarily believed as consensus.

So I suggest refraining from posting malicious comments aimed at CS, Craterchains, Norval or FieryIce in the future, since it's been done to death.
 
So it's been said, so shall it be done.

I only ask that "malicious" be defined so I can avoid it / report it in the future.
 
Malicious in this particular thread is constant attacks at their theory, since the outcomes are already known. (btw, I added a forum description to the rules sticky you might find of interest, although It might be altered based on peer review a little)
 
I left this 'discussion' a while back but I must ask, what about attacks on a person? Norval attacks personally in almost every post, that was my biggest complaint and I made (and repeated it) almost 10 pages ago.
 
Not a rocket scientist but it seems rather obvious that these chains are primarily found on smaller bodies. i.e. - capable of being torn apart (slightly) into loosely formed groups and due to minor gravity before impact have little accelertion to spread them out.

The SL9/Jupitor observation shows that under heavier gravitational acceleration the impacts would be spread further apart.
 
don't bother, since the few examples we've actually been able to record (like SL9) don't make perfect lines that evidence is meaningless to norval. The 'alien war' theory is obviously much more likely.
 
buffys said:
don't bother, since the few examples we've actually been able to record (like SL9) don't make perfect lines that evidence is meaningless to norval. The 'alien war' theory is obviously much more likely.
Click to expand...


I'll have to remember that. :D
 
MacM said:
Not a rocket scientist but it seems rather obvious that these chains are primarily found on smaller bodies. i.e. - capable of being torn apart (slightly) into loosely formed groups and due to minor gravity before impact have little accelertion to spread them out.

The SL9/Jupitor observation shows that under heavier gravitational acceleration the impacts would be spread further apart.
Click to expand...

i posted some crappy math sometime back at this page:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36047&page=9&pp=20

Inside there is a section that shows mathematical arguments why this is so. Have a look :) .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top