Crater Research

Status
Not open for further replies.
Persol, They continue to post the claims because you continue to respond about them. It should be a simple "Conclusive statement" from your part and an end to participation in such a thread, otherwise it just prevokes useless bickering.

It's not like a 150+ posted thread really needs so many posts with the repetition from either side, in fact if I was to edit this thread and remove the repetition the thread would probably only be 3 pages in size.
 
Well, Persol, you may want to enlarge some parts of that map, besides pan around a bit. Some of those Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains seem to go on for hundreds of hits in a line. Many go in different directions across each other. Do I really have to map out each individual chain for you? This was brought up before and even discussed how there seems to have been a major flood over the area and crater chains before and after that flood.

A lot of this thread is about this thread and not its contents, sort of like about the images, and not their content. Just an information control tactic. Or stupidity?
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Well, Persol, you may want to enlarge some parts of that map, besides pan around a bit.
Click to expand...
I want to the max resolution available... still not enough to see if the craters are uniform in size. In most cases you can't even tell if it's craters or a jagged border.
Do I really have to map out each individual chain for you? This was brought up before and even discussed how there seems to have been a major flood over the area and crater chains before and after that flood.
Click to expand...
I'd like you to show me how you determine crater chains from that link you posted. You can't. The resolution is not high enough.

As for a flood in the 'area'... what area are you talking about. You posted a link to the entire planet.
 
Persol
It is not my place to teach you the concepts of pattern recognition. Your difficulty appears to be more of a visual one. New monitor of high resolution is a big help. Or print them out as hard copy so you can get a better resolution. The data sets we present are all that we have available on the web. Complain to NASA about it. :rolleyes:

Maybe your browser isn’t set up properly so you can’t pan and zoom? :bugeye:

:m:
 
Zoom in as far as you can on the images you linked. More of the 'craters' are 2 to 5 pixels wide. You can't determine a crate from this resolution. If you disagree, show one.

I'm not complaining to NASA, because they aren't the ones trying to use these pictures as proving 'hundreds of crater chains all in a row'. You are. This source doesn't show that. Granted, it shows hundreds of lines, but I have no reason to believe that even a fraction of them consist of 'evenely spaced evenly sized craters'.
 
Pixels have nothing to do with your monitor, so try again. The website is only sending a certain resolution. That resolution is measured in pixels. You can zoom in as far as you want with whatever software... but you are only going to see the number of pixels they sent.

That said, it should be very easy for you to post a picture of these craer chains from that site.

Of course, you won't be able to do that, cause you're full of shit. The resolution on those images is too low to determine evely spaced/sized craters.
 
To illustrate what some are not seeing, I copied the themis mars map image, a close view as supplied by Thermal Emissions Imaging System (THEMIS) Mars 2001 Odyssey.

mars_compose.pl.jpeg


The Mars 2001 Odyssey orbiter launched from Kennedy Space Center 7 April 2001. The orbiter arrived at Mars on 24 October 2001. Upon arrival, the orbiter went into an ~18-hour capture orbit. The orbiter spent the next several months achieving a circular mapping orbit by aerobraking (using the atmosphere to slow and shrink the orbit). This is the same procedure as that followed by Mars Global Surveyor. Aerobraking concluded in early February 2002, and primary mapping operations began a few weeks later. Odyssey carries three main science instruments: The Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) the Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS), and the Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE).
Click to expand...
About THEMIS
:D
 
Hmmm.......thanks for the picture, FieryIce. Disregarding Persol's objections and assuming the dots are really craters, i now have mathematical proof crater chains with 50 craters can form with the probability even greater than of the order 10e-8, or may be as high as 10e-3

Which means there is a good possibility 1 out of 100,000,000 impacts will form the above crater chains. But this probability may be as high as about 1 in 1000.
 
Yeah, he did just ignore my actual comment, didn't he.

There are not any craters chains there were you can determine that they are equally sized and equally spaced. The small ones may be, but you have a 50% error in guessing the size.

It most certainly doesn't show 'hundreds of (evenly spaced/sized) crater chains all in a row'
 
I had a look at a an image of an meteor impact that generated the usual round/oval crested crater, however what came away from the crater I would guess were chunks of meteorite (meteor having landed) and crust and they had bounce across the surface like a stone skimming due to the force of the impact.

This generated something very similar to what you keep refering to CS craterchains and pretty much looked very similar to the image that FieryIce has posted.

'A rolling stone gathers no moss', but it sure can leave a trail in the dirt
 
Stryder, if you looked at the mapped image from Themis you would see there is no large crater at the ends of these CS crater chains for rolling debre to be the cause so your rolling stone did get mossy.

Disreguarding Persol's objection is fine Arch_Rival but ignore is a design feature of this forum software.
If there were any accuracy in your calculations then that would mean for there to be just 10 crater chains on mars there would have to be 1,000,000,000 craters and for there to be 100 crater chains on mars there would have to be 10,000,000,000 craters. Since this area in the Themis picture shows layers of CS crater chains, older largers ones under the newer smaller CS crater chains then for there to be any fragment of truth to your math then for a 1000 crater chains there would have to be 100,000,000,000 accompanying craters to these chains. So where are these 100,000,000,000 craters then Arch_Rival, I see a cratered high lands on mars but not cratered to the extent you need to fit your math.
:D
 
Look at the images... notice something that these craters don't have but others do... These a depressions caused by subsidence.. The planet shrinks as it cools an cracks. Less stable deposits fall in an thus you get rows of depressions.

Note they don't have any ejecta... 2000K SouthEast and you have Valles Marineris caused by the very same processes that formed the features displayed in the images posted.
 
FieryIce said:
Stryder, if you looked at the mapped image from Themis you would see there is no large crater at the ends of these CS crater chains for rolling debre to be the cause so your rolling stone did get mossy.

Disreguarding Persol's objection is fine Arch_Rival but ignore is a design feature of this forum software.
If there were any accuracy in your calculations then that would mean for there to be just 10 crater chains on mars there would have to be 1,000,000,000 craters and for there to be 100 crater chains on mars there would have to be 10,000,000,000 craters. Since this area in the Themis picture shows layers of CS crater chains, older largers ones under the newer smaller CS crater chains then for there to be any fragment of truth to your math then for a 1000 crater chains there would have to be 100,000,000,000 accompanying craters to these chains. So where are these 100,000,000,000 craters then Arch_Rival, I see a cratered high lands on mars but not cratered to the extent you need to fit your math.
:D
Click to expand...

If you read my reply carefully you wouldn't be asking such questions. I presented a range of probabilities. You see only the lower bound.
 
Arch_Rival
If you read my reply carefully you wouldn't be asking such questions. I presented a range of probabilities. You see only the lower bound.
Click to expand...

No Arch_Rival, I used the higher “bound” (as you call it), the larger the count the more likelihood of a favorable result; using the 1 out of 1000 would be the lower “bound”, the lesser number the less likely you are to get a favorable result for you calculations. Considering this is using your numbers for random craters lining up to form CS crater chains but where are all these random craters in this image that you based your numbers on?
Half a dozen random craters as crater chains does not make.
Half a dozen random craters a 1000 craters does not make.
:D
 
i'm sorry you don't know your math.
1/100,000,000 is a smaller probability, therefore a lower bound.
1/1000 is a greater probability, therefore an upper bound.
But if you read carefully, you will see i said "on the order of 10e-3.

FieryIce, let me help you a little. Forget mars a moment. Erosion there erase the craters. Lets take another world where craters are preserved. Give me a count on the number of craters on the moon.

Discalimer: This proof is a refinement of the earlier one. The upper and lower bounds may not be strictly true, but they show crater chains are more probable than "winning lotto for the next 6 months."
 
Last edited:
FieryIce, i'm giving you the chance to convince yourself what i say has some truth in it. Count and tell me the number of craters.

Unless, of course, you are afraid of the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top