Crater Research

Status
Not open for further replies.
FieryIce said:
Arch Rival
One thing to note about the Sedan Crater is that it was a subsurface explosion, a tunnel dug, device inserted, filled with cememt then capped with a led plate. So put your shot gun under the surface, slightly cover it up then (somehow) fire it. Just a thought.
Remember the explosion vaporized the cememt and shot the led plate somewhere, never to be found again. Compare this to a surface or above surface test.
The pouring sand down the sides idea just isn't correct.
:D
Click to expand...

I see. So how, in your opinion, will the central peak of a nuclear crater form?
 
As for the nipple that is formed in the center of many craters try some effects of “rebound” and relative gravity properties. Many of your questions are already answered but you have failed to read the posts I guess? The probability of a 50 strike pattern of this nature was computed out in that thread I posted. You would know that answer had you bothered to read.

There is a great amount of information about the "nipples" in craters at many research site on craters. There are even ones that the nipple is above the surrounding rims of said craters. (Go figure those ones !? !?)

Guess it is time to make graphics and pages with pictures for the bigger words?

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
Another view of Nevada:

NTS5_250c10.jpg

Closer Views of the Nevada Test Site

The center nipple would most likely be from fall back like is stated on the http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html site.
:D
 
The rapidity of your responses indicates that you didn’t even bother to do what should have been done long ago. My expectation is not unreasonable: a systematic cataloging of the physical characteristics of the phenomenon you claim to be researching.

Its the very least we should expect from someone who claims to be researching/investigating a scientific theory.

It appears that you did not understand my request the first time, so I’ll repeat it.

First, if crater chains are tidally disrupted objects, then we should expect to find that the further moon (Callisto) would have longer (on average) crater chains than those found on the closer moon. (Ganymede) Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself.

Next, we should expect to find a greater number of craters making up each chain on Callisto than the chains on Ganymede.

Finally, due to volume conservation, we should expect that the chains with fewer craters would have larger crater diameters. (again, on average)

You guys like pattern recognition, right? Put it on a chart and the pattern becomes unavoidable.

Let’s be clear. This is not a contest. This is not about ego or personality. The natural explanation holds up under intense examination and the un-natural explanation crumbles.
 
AKA Heather, see page 2 of this thread, your questions were addressed and answered
:D
 
AK said;
Let’s be clear. This is not a contest. This is not about ego or personality. The natural explanation holds up under intense examination and the un-natural explanation crumbles.

You are so right about that. Intelligence is the highest PROBABILITY by elimination of all the possibilities. The FACT remains that they are spaced to EVENLY, and in such a LINEAR fashion that they are OBVIOUSLY not naturally made, unless you consider intelligence to be natural?

Yes, I have looked at the comparisons you mention and based on ALL the CS types of crater chains located where we have pictures of them through out our solar system make that a mere “POSSIBILITY” not one of the probabilities. In other words, it falls apart in light of all the other locations of CS types of crater chains.

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
Norval: i read the post on throwing dice. Nothing there to indicate the probability of your craterchains. Throwing dice is completely random. Formation of craterchains has alot less random elements. Your thread on probability is inconclusive.

So far i haven't seen your calculations for probability of intelligent life forming those craters. If you did, kindly post the link, instead of acting all flustered that nobody reads your posts.

As for the issue of central peak, it is my opinion that material falling back will not form a prominent central peak. The reason for this is that the material will tumble from higher elevations to lower, reducing the height of the peak. Again, if you have any posts on this, kindly post the link instead of getting all flustered and hot again.

And post links to research that prominent peaks are formed from nuclear detonations. And again, don't get upset.
 
Arch_Rival said:
Blackholesun, you are going about it the wrong way. A better experiment is to toss thousands of pebbles at once.
Click to expand...


That's what I was proposing and that's what I have done. Just throw a handful of pebbles underhand at a low angle and you can get a line of impacts.

Second as NORVAL says that these are nuclear weapon craters than he doesn't know that to be most damaging nuclear weapons do their most damage as airbursters. Why do you think we have our nukes set to go off over 1000 feet in the air? The shockwave that forms is extremely damaging and able to reach out farther more destructively whereas letting the weapon hit the surface imparts a good deal of energy into the ground. Given that I don't see 500 mile wide city debris at any of the crater chain sites (there would be something left; think Hiroshima) there would be no reason to drop that many nukes into the ground unless whatever you were going after was subterranean and huge. It would be a waste of resources and energy. I would assume an advanced ETI would know about the logistics of a war and the efficient use of materials.

I think norval is just playing too much Battlezone.
 
Last edited:
Arch Rival
How about you giving an example of the math factors that you feel would be applicable?
How would you determine them? We come up with about 5 variable factors as a base. Then there are singular variables of a few more to take into account.

I guess I shouldn’t repeat myself, but blackhole just for you;
Yah really need to broaden your concepts with some reading BHS, try SUBMARINE WARFARE?!?! What am I your freaking college professor giving a lecture? Then really do some home work and DIG, DIG, DIG. This ain’t the 1940’s Atom Bombs were talking about here.
FOCLMFAO

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
relationship between CS types of crater chains and weapons? NO

FOCL
Click to expand...
Yeah, i can make a relationship between someone crapping their pants and the earth, they crap their pants, which is brown, and so is the earth, that does not mean either are related dipshit.
Furthermore, if someone wanted to leave a message, it probably WOULDNT look like a natural occurence. When the church fist saw the niagra falls they thought it was a miracle of god, That sure as hell doesnt mean it is.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
Blacky


Don’t forget, that ALL have to hit at once as the scientists said they obviously did because of the lack of ejecta from one crater to the next
Click to expand...
Actually, you cant relate anything on another planet to a subject, since the factors vary incredibly, like gravity, and atmosphere.
 
craterchains (Norval said:
I guess I shouldn’t repeat myself, but blackhole just for you;Yah really need to broaden your concepts with some reading BHS, try SUBMARINE WARFARE?!?! What am I your freaking college professor giving a lecture? Then really do some home work and DIG, DIG, DIG. This ain’t the 1940’s Atom Bombs were talking about here.
FOCLMFAO

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
Click to expand...

Crackpot response (see it pop up every time): Hey this is MY theory. YOU should be the one doing homework on why this is so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!! I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU A THEORY OF MINE SO GO OUT THERE AND EXPLAIN WHY IT WILL WORK!!

In other words you want US to do YOUR homework for you for a theory YOU are CONTINUOUSLY pushing on us OVER and OVER and OVER......

I never remember any research papers asking ME to do the math or gather the evidence because they were trying to prove a point.

BTW what the hell does submarine warfare have to do with anything? MIRVs were multiple warheads that independantly targeted separate targets with a smaller megaton yield. The whole point was to reduce collateral damage by matching the yield to the target. That didn't mean throwing 20 or so into the ground evenly spaced. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Some are more powerful than others, but they are all designed to kill; whether it is a 40's style nuke or a nuke of the future.
 
Norval, i wasn't the one claiming to have math to show. You did. And until now i haven't seen any reasonable mathematical arguments.
 
blackholesun said:
Hey this is MY theory. YOU should be the one doing homework on why this is so. DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE!! I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU A THEORY OF MINE SO GO OUT THERE AND EXPLAIN WHY IT WILL WORK!!
Click to expand...

I was just going to say that.

As I said in my first post, so far all you've supplied is some links and directed us to "Check the math people for the real truth". You could at least show us this staggering and indisputable "math" that proves your point.

Hell, I'll be happy to eat my words if you're right but you have to show more than wild speculation and abuse for me to do it.
 
Can’t prove me wrong?
What a bummer, I guess you don’t know math very well and defiantly DON’T even have a friend that is good at math. Tough break. It is called probability and logic. But even basic geometry will do it.

You obviously can’t read the thread that was mathematical proof right here in scifool’em forums? Or can’t your mind conceive of 50>10 ?
 
What the hell do you keep going on about? You were just asked about aq dozen times for this math. Your response was "can't prove me wrong". This is just stupid, we have no idea what your thought is even based on since you continue to refer to it, but never show it.
 
Norval, since you are slow in understanding what i'm saying, let me repeat: show reasonable mathematical proof of your claims.

Let me offer an improvement to your website. Put a link to all these posts at sciforums, so people can know what material have been covered, what material others have contributed, and what others think. After all, i'm sure you like the masses to examine all arguments and find the truth for themselves.
 
Arch_Rival said:
Norval, since you are slow in understanding what i'm saying, let me repeat: show reasonable mathematical proof of your claims.
Click to expand...

You know what? I don't even need reasonable math, unreasonable would be fine. Just give us something beyond opinion to back your claims.
 
as NORVAL says that these are nuclear weapon craters than he doesn't know that to be most damaging nuclear weapons do their most damage as airbursters. Why do you think we have our nukes set to go off over 1000 feet in the air? The shockwave that forms is extremely damaging and able to reach out farther more destructively whereas letting the weapon hit the surface imparts a good deal of energy into the ground.
Click to expand...

I think that things work a little differently in a vacuum. The shockwave you speak of consists of a pressure wave of super-heated air. By detonating the bomb in a vacuum, there will still be the initial flash of light and harder radiation, but the shockwave will consist only of the vaporised casing of the bomb. I don't know whether wrapping the bomb in some kind of jacket would compensate at all for the lack of atmosphere.

Wow... did I just say something to defend Craterchains(Norval?!
I didn't expect that when I got up this morning.
 
Why don’t you just accept Dr. Bottky’s math then, and stop posting here? Not a problemo for me if you do. Obviously I am dealing with some college youths here. Not that I am down on the youth of today with their incessant demand for instant gratification, it just seems that they would have learned to do something for themselves. Time to start exercising and using all that you have learned. Or at least try too? Provided you have learned anything of value from your professors? Try using Bottky’s given formulae and adjusting it to see if you can even use it?

What I do find interesting is that no one answers ANY of my questions.
Like does anyone have a picture of a KNOWN meteor strike that has left a crater here on earth?

Point being WE cant make a crater chain with our PRESENT level of technology on our own moon, so how in hell can anyone think these would be caused “naturally”?

Faulty
I am impressed Faulty. ALL of these variables need to be addressed when developing conceptual causes and effects. I think space warfare would be very similar to submarine warfare minus the given properties of water and gravity.

The mark of all great conspiracies is the corruption of common knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top