Crater Research

[SkinWalker]

Typical pseudoscience response. Plug in scientific sounding/looking comment/formula to offer credibility to the drivel.

Question: What are the data used to arrive at mu and sigma in the first formula?

I was going to ask for you data sets used in the whole analysis but I realized that you most likely don't actually have data that are plugged into the above formulae, so in all likelihood an aswer like, "do your own reasearch," or "why should I give you the data I worked hard at collecting? Get your own."

Interesting, if not telling, is the assumption that the existance of a non-linear but multiple impact site on Europa lends credibility to the impossibility of catenae occurring in nature. While you openly ridicule Bottke without showing any applicable data to support your discontent with his research, Bottke's (& Richardson's, 1997) Earth Crossing Asteroid model provides a clear explanation for the probable dynamics of a rubble-pile progenitor.

Along with Richardson (1998) they found that elongated asteroids were found to be far easier to disrupt than spherical ones, which is one reason why I cannot understand why you continually refer to "comets" when discussing tidal disruption. On your pseudoscience site, you also state, "Because of the different materials that make up the comet the gravity effects can pull the heavier density materials lose from the less dense materials thus breaking up the comet. Because of the varying densities the comet will break up further and in many sized pieces drifting rapidly apart 2 from each other" However, in Bottke & Richardson (1997) and Richardson & Bottke (1998), it is noted that the asteroids modeled had uniform densities across particles. Thus negating your fallacious assumption that comets, with a more spherical morphology (and regardless of particulate density), are the only progenitors in catenae.

On your site you state, "Comparing the behavior and pattern of SL9 [...] clearly demonstrates that tidal disruption of mud and ice comets or asteroids were not the cause of these remarkable catinas. But what of rubble-pile asteroids of uniform particulate density.

By themselves, this point of denisity that your site has ignored totally negates your wild hypothesis that a "war" occurred in our solar system in which one or more intelligent species bombed the other.

By the way, since we've discussed your pseudoscience website in brief, let me add that evidence cannot collaborate. I think you meant "corroborative evidence."

As for your challenge to show some math, why should we go through the trouble? The researchers you consistently cite and dismiss without giving legitimate cause have already done so. Richardson, et al (1998) noted for instance that a body with a density of 2 g cm^-3 and P = 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 h sheds mass when [epsilon](rem) = 0.56, 0.66, 0.73, 0.78, 0.82, and 0.85. Thus none of the remnants are in danger of flying apart from rotation alone. [epsilon](rem) refers to the "ellipticity" factor.

That a "war" is the cause for catenae is pure and unfounded fantasy.

Bottke Jr, William F.; Richardson, Derek C. (1997). Can tidal disruption of asteroids make crater chains on the Earth and Moon? ICARUS 126:2 pp. 470-474

Richardson, Derek C.; Bottke, William F.; Love, Stanley G. (1998). Tidal Distortion and Disruption of Earth-Crossing Asteroids ICARUS 134:1 pp. 47-76

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Fantasy?
Believing anything will break up evenly and land in an almost perfect lineal pattern that we cannot duplicate with our level of technology, and do so dozens of times in a few hundred square kilometers, now that is fantasy.

http://themis.asu.edu/mars-bin/mars...N_SELECT_ZOOM=PAN&MAP_IMG.x=265&MAP_IMG.y=256

Tosses a hand full of gravel at your feet, checks for Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains. All I see are dirty feet. Step in somethiong?

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

 

[Arch_Rival]

Allow me to offer some fast and dirty math.

With reference to this image: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9_frag.gif

We can assign values to each of the fragments representing their size, ie a bigger fragment gets a bigger number. Assuming brightness is directly related to size, i used the following values for each of the 20 fragments:

A:1; B:1; C:1; D:1; E:2; F:2; G:4,0.5; H:3; K:4; L:3; N:1; P:1,1; Q:4; R:2; S:2; U:0.5; V:1; W:1.

Summing the frequency of each size occurring:

Size______________Freq
0.5------------------ 2
1------------------- 9
2------------------- 4
3------------------- 2
4------------------- 3

Knowing the frequencies, we can assign probabilities to fragments of each size forming:

Size_________________Prob
0.5-------------------- 0.1
1--------------------- 0.45
2--------------------- 0.2
3--------------------- 0.1
4--------------------- 0.15

From here we can obtain rough estimates (not strictly true) for the expected value E(X) and the variance Var(X).

E(X) = 1.8
Var(X) = 1.335

Initial comet size before breakup = 36

Examining this photo:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011215.html

i observe that some smaller craters are only about half the size of bigger craters. Assuming that fragment size is directly related to size of crater (not true, as you will see later, and how this approximation affect calculated values), i assume that the smallest fragments are half that of biggest fragments.

Using a Normal distribution, the probability that a fragment falls between size 2 and 4 is:
P(2<X<4) = 0.5388

These limits are chosen because the smallest fragments are half that of biggest fragments. The average fragment size is 2.8889.

For an average fragment size of 2.8889, the initial comet can form 12.46 fragments.

Probability that all fragments fall within size 2 to 4:
P(all 12 fragments between sizes 2-4) = 0.5388^12.46 = 4.504e-4

Earlier i said the assumption that crater size is directly related to fragment size is not true. Here is a more accurate relationship:

D = km^n

where:
D is diameter of crater
k is a constant
m is the mass of fragment
n is a number, usually about 1/3.

(You can check out http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communication/Brana/equation.html for the full equation. Since W = 0.5mv^2, and since fragments, on breaking, share roughly the same velocity, v is taken as a constant. All terms except m is simplified into the constant k. Kinetic energy is therefore assumed to be dependent only on mass, and therefore size of fragment.)

Since n is usually less than 1, a difference in impactor size will cause a less than proportionate difference in crater size.

For example, using n = 1/3, if a fragment of size 1 causes a crater of size 1, a fragment of size 1.1 (10% increase) will cause a crater of size 1.03 (3% increase). Similarly, if the fragment is of size 0.9 (10% decrease), the crater size is 0.965 (3% decrease). For the crater size to double, the fragment need to be size 8, an 8 fold increase!

What this implies is that instead of using limits of fragment sizes between 2 and 4, we can expand this, maybe to between 1.8 to 2.2, and we can still observe the largest crater twice the size of the smallest. Expanding the range of limits increases the probability of forming craters of the observed sizes, indicating the observed crater chains are more likely to form than what my calculations show.

However, for simplicity, we use the old value of 4.504e-4.

This is the probability of a comet fragmenting to give crater chains shown in the photo. But how likely is it that a comet actually gets into a situation to form these fragments? And how likely these fragments land in a straight line? i can't offer an answer to the first question, but for the second, i think it is pretty likely, since the initial trajectory is shared by all the fragments. On the whole, these incidents may be quite likely to happen.

Just consider: since the invent of telescopes, or since your lifetime, how many comets have been observed to impact planets in our solar system and form a significant crater? And how many of those got into a string-of-fragments situation like Shoemaker-Levy 9?

Lets compare the value of 4.504e-4 with that of intelligent life in close proximity to us. i propose the equation:

p = 1 - (1-1/x)^n

where:
p is the probability of intelligent life in n systems under consideration
x is the number of systems considered with only 1 with intelligent life
n is the number of systems in close proximity to us under consideration.

The value of p obtained is actually a lower bound. To know the reason, see the derivation directly below.

( The derivation of the equation is as follows: Imagine a large sphere encompassing our solar system. Our solar system has intelligent life, ie us. Now, let the sphere expand to include nearly star systems. Assuming those systems are devoid of intelligent life, the probability of life forming around any system is 1/x, where x is the number of systems within the sphere. There is a flaw here: we are assuming all systems are homogenous, which is not true. But if we let x tend to a very big number, 1/x closes in to zero. Therefore, all systems are assumed to be equally, extremely, difficult to form intelligent life. Include this with the assumption that we are the only intelligent life within the sphere, and the value p can take only a lower bound. The term (1-1/x)^n is the probability no intelligent life forms around all systems within a close proximity (if we define close proximity as anything closer than 20 light years to us, n takes a value of about 100, since there are 100 stars within a 20 light year distance). The probability there is at least one other intelligent life is 1 - (1-1/x)^n. )

To have a probability of intelligent life higher than the value of 4.504e-4, x is about 222221. This indicates that on average 1 out of 222221 systems have intelligent life. Is this value possible? Maybe.

Now lets talk about distances between craters. Supposing a comet/asteroid require gravitational force of magnitude F to act on it before it breaks up,

F = GmM/(r^2)
F is the force required to break the comet
G is the gravitational constant
m is mass of comet
M is mass of planet
r is the distance of comet to center of planet

Now, lets see what happens if the planet mass decreases. To maintain the necessary force, lets multiply the numerator and demonimator by a common factor 1/s, ie:

F = G(m)[1/s(M)]/[1/s^0.5(r)]^2

As s increases, the term [1/s(M)] decreases, ie mass of planet decreases. To maintain the necessary force, the distance from comet to planet must be reduced by 1/s^0.5.

Now lets examine how the radius of the planet decrease as mass decrease. We can use:

Density = M / [(4/3)(pi)(R^3)]

where:
M is mass of planet
R is radius of planet, assuming it is spherical.

Using a similar method:

Density = [1/s(M)] / [(4/3)(pi)[(1/s^[1/3])(R)]^3]

As s increases, ie mass of planet decreases, the distance from comet to center of planet is divided by s^0.5, while the radius is divided by s^(1/3). Since s^0.5 is bigger than s^(1/3), r reduces at a faster rate than R as mass of the planet is decreased. The band where the initial comet/asteroid can break up before impact gets narrower and narrower.

The implications of this is simple: For higher mass bodies, the comet can break apart at higher altitude, allowing the fragmets to move further apart before impacting (eg Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter), while on lower mass bodies (eg moons) the fragments form at lower altitude, leaving them lesser distance and time to move apart before impact, forming closely-spaced chains. This suggests that if crater chains are found most commonly on lower mass bodies than on big planetary sized bodies, then it is likely they are caused by comets/asteroids rather than intelligent beings.

For those of you who did not bother to go through the math, here is the conclusion: the math, admittedly inaccurate and full of assumptions, suggests that there is a good chance the craters were formed by natural means rather than by some alien civilisation. The probabilities that the required crater chains form is higher than previously suggested by Norval.

If the criterion for craters to be of equal size is 10% variation in diameter plus minus, then the impacting fragments can have about 30% variation in mass/size plus minus. To form crater chains where the biggest member is twice that of smallest, the fragments can take a spread of sizes where the biggest is eight times that of smallest.

 

[SkinWalker]

And, according to Richardson and Bottke (their model does work, by the way), the "S"-type tidal disruption event creates multiple particles, the largest of which is less than 50% of the progenitor.

In other words, the "string of pearls" formation as seen in SL-9.

What they don't say is that SL-9's impact is indicative of all catenae formations. They appear to maintain that the disruption itself is possible, even probable. Each progenitor will encounter different forces of velocity, angle of incidence, tidal pull, self-cohesion of it's particles, etc.

The rubble-pile asteroids exist. Tidal forces exist. Encounters with planets and moons exist. Aliens, ETI and their "war" are fantasy. Get over it, Norval.

 

[SkinWalker]

Fantasy?
Believing anything will break up evenly and land in an almost perfect lineal pattern that we cannot duplicate with our level of technology,

But it has been modeled by Richardson, et al (1998). They included the math that you've been asking for as well.

I'll say again: On your site you state, "Comparing the behavior and pattern of SL9 [...] clearly demonstrates that tidal disruption of mud and ice comets or asteroids were not the cause of these remarkable catinas (sic)." But what of rubble-pile asteroids of uniform particulate density? To make a couple minor corrections to your site, you would separate asteroids from the "mud and ice" of comets and check the spelling of catena. In addition the plural is generally accepted to be catenae, but I'm sure catenas would suffice.

Tosses a hand full of gravel at your feet, checks for Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains. All I see are dirty feet. Step in somethiong?

"Cunningham/Smart types of crater chains" are ficticious, so I suppose I did step in something. It wasn't dirt, it was pseudoscience.

The mark of all great pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Prove it. You can’t.

We can demonstrate Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains with explosives “intelligently” placed. With in the “human” capacity of reason there is nothing short of intelligence that could have produced these Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains where they were photographed. And your reasoning, or lack of, is based on fantasy or?

Tosses another hand full of gravel (all of various sized pieces of rock) at your feet.
This link may help you pseudodebunkers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,663391,00.html

 

[BigBlueHead]

Norval, you just posted a link to an article about... well... shit.

Is this intended to support your theory?

 

[blackholesun]

Wow Norval....just...wow....you really are ignorant of what is in front of you aren't you.

You totally ignore Arch Rival's excellent attempt at the math and his conclusions and you link to a website with a name of "The enema within" perfectly describing your own logic. Well done!

You may also want to read this analysis although you'll surely dismiss it:

www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1602.pdf

And this:

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~bottke/crater_chain/chain.html

And this which explains some as secondary impacts from primary impactors:

http://starryskies.com/The_sky/events/lunar-2003/3d.crater.chain.html

 

[SkinWalker]

Prove it. You can’t.

Prove what, Norval? That your wild speculation is a fantasy? Of course it cannot be proven. It's fantasy. It defies testing. Perhaps catenae can be created by explosives (I haven't seen you demonstrate that either), but why would this eliminate a natural cause as well?

You appear to be living in some fantasy world, Norval. "Prove it. You can't." If that's the only thing you've got to say after being presented with the quality refutations that have been given here, then I suppose your next step is to attempt to delete all of your posts and leave "I'm not playing your game" behind.

To those that think critically here:
This has been a good exercise in debunking pseudoscience. In my opinion, that's what a pseudoscience forum on a science-oriented board should be focused on. Norval has demonstrated many clear examples of pseudoscientific behavior and few, if any, examples of scientific methodology. Pseudoscience and paranormal claims are part of the problem with the "dumbing down" of our society, and deserve to be combatted whenever they're present. Too many scientists and researchers simply ignore these wild speculations out of a lack of time, interest or willingness to argue with or educate the ignorant.

Pseudoscience proponents take offense to having their claims labeled "pseudoscience" or "wild speculation," but I would argue that there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend from time to time. But we must take care not to slip to the lows that Norval, crazymikey and UFOTheatre have by directing insults and ad hominem remarks to the opposition. This is why I have attempted to keep labels like "kook" and "woowoo" from escaping my fingertips. Let them resort to profanities, ridiculing their opponents, and making immature comments instead of counter-refuting. That, indeed, is the mark of pseudoscientist.

 

[Persol]

We can demonstrate Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains with explosives “intelligently” placed.

That's funny. I can demonstrate that trees can be planted to look like they naturally grew there. Trees must have been intelligently placed.

Proving that something 'can' be done by intelligence isn't a very big feat, as you can assume that intelligence is capable of imitating what happens in nature... but just because intelligence can plant a tree 9or cause a crater) doesn't mean that intelligence did it.

 

[Arch_Rival]

To those that think critically here:
This has been a good exercise in debunking pseudoscience. In my opinion, that's what a pseudoscience forum on a science-oriented board should be focused on. Norval has demonstrated many clear examples of pseudoscientific behavior and few, if any, examples of scientific methodology. Pseudoscience and paranormal claims are part of the problem with the "dumbing down" of our society, and deserve to be combatted whenever they're present. Too many scientists and researchers simply ignore these wild speculations out of a lack of time, interest or willingness to argue with or educate the ignorant.

Yeah, well, it's been fun.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Some can’t see the forest for the trees, and some can’t see the difference between a forest and an orchard? Thank you Persol for the great analogy.

The obvious tactic of all the pseudodebunkers is to try to get us to admit that all we have is a theory, just like any other theory. This is true, we only offer another theory for the cause of crater chains, the Cunningham / Smart Theory that it took intelligence to form these types of crater chains. Comet SL9 and the probability math clearly demonstrate that a natural breakup and impacting of a space body producing a CS type of crater chain is nearly impossible. There for with hundreds of CS types of crater chains in our solar system and being found in all types of environments with greatly varied physical properties, it seems highly probable that another reason for their cause is indicated.

 

[(Q)]

it seems highly probable that another reason for their cause is indicated.

For a moment, we'll say there is another cause. But to speculate beyond the scope of realistic causes and claim aliens are bombing the landscapes is rather ridiculous. And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest such a thing.

So, you must further speculate what type of alien ships were used, what kind of weapons, the reasons for bombing, etc. And since you have nothing to reference, you must further speculate on a speculation.

Therefore, anyone can also come up with all kinds of speculations.

I could theorize that a black hole came very close to the object in question and the tidal waves from the black hole created matter/anti-matter fluctuations on the surface of the object thus causing explosions. Plausible? Why or why not?

 

[sideshowbob]

I'm sorry. I tried to read the entire thread. I really did. But I finally had to skip to the "back of the book".

If nothing else, this thread is a beautiful example of science and pseudoscience.
Science explains. Science proposes experiments and does experiments. Science comes up with new information. Scientists disagree with each other and correct each other.
Pseudoscience rants and insults. Pseudoscience demands answers but gives none.

Pseudoscience says "Prove me wrong." Science says "Prove yourself right."

It's amusing that CraterChains brags about working on his "theory" for three years and he's "still" coming up with new things.
Science has been going for hundreds of years and it's still producing more questions than answers. (If only we'd listen to the pseudoscientists, we'd know all the answers.)

The CraterChains "theory" depends on three unsubstantiated speculations:
1. Extraterrestrial intelligence.
2. A war between extraterrestrial intelligences.
3. A vast conspiracy to cover up 1 and 2.

The CraterChains "theory" isn't even the best crackpot theory.

 

[moementum7]

No disrespect to you Crater.
My statement is extremely generalized.
I don't know who is worse off?
The person who continuously cries wolf,
or those who keep running to see it each and every time, then question his assertions, again, and again,and again, and again.
Something to do I suppose.
As long as everyones happy.

 

[(Q)]

But moe, we're adding content...

 

[SkinWalker]

The obvious tactic of all the pseudodebunkers is to try to get us to admit that all we have is a theory, just like any other theory.

You couldn't be further from the truth. Its been my position that you don't even have a theory, but rather a wild speculation. "Theory" suggests that your methodology is sound and that your hypotheses have stood up to testing. When, in fact, they haven't and this has been effectively demonstrated here in this thread.

Comet SL9 and the probability math clearly demonstrate that a natural breakup and impacting of a space body producing a CS type of crater chain is nearly impossible.

"Probability math" which you failed to demonstrate. Moreover, you base your hypotheses on the SL-9 event, which is but one of many, many events that include progenitors that impact the surfaces of planets and moons. You fail to consider the significance of the angle of incidence of the SL-9 comet as well as the point at which tidal disruption occurred with relation to the comet's impact with the planet. Moreover, you fail to answer the criticism of your hypothesis that assumes all progenitors are comprised of "mud" and "ice" of various particulate size and density, whereas many, if not most are asteroids comprised of uniformly dense matter.

SL-9 did, in fact, produce as "string of pearls" formation, however far apart the particles. Indeed, with the correct angle of incidence and timing, the catena effect may have occurred. That you conclude a war is the origin of craters in the solar system based on SL-9's impact is preposterous. And fantasy.

it seems highly probable that another reason for their cause is indicated.

Only to the uneducated, easily wowed eye.

The mark of all great pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.

 

[Arch_Rival]

"Comet SL9 and the probability math clearly demonstrate that a natural breakup and impacting of a space body producing a CS type of crater chain is nearly impossible. "

Come on, Norval. You already admitted you don't have any math to show. Now you are insisting you have math again?

I know what's driving you, Norval. You are desperately trying to make a name for yourself, naming the craters "Cunningham/Smart craters" and all, as if you discovered them. But your theory is obviously so lousy it can't hold even a drop of water. Lots of people here have raised doubts to your theory, yet you refuse to acknowledge those issues. i also noticed how you like to talk about your age and experience in response to queries. Is it because you think you are 50+ years old, so you cannot be wrong? Or is it desperate face-saving effort on your part?

When faced with criticisms, you claimed you answered them before, yet you either refused to post links to where you answered them, or you posted links to irrelevant sites, or links to some lame argument.

Then when you did not get the recognition you so desperately crave, you resort to personal attacks on students, and remarks like this:

"Those that hide behind their computer screens and don’t even give the basic information about themselves DO usually have something to hide. Mostly their lack of self worth and ignorance. They lack integrity and honesty also."

Don't even go near issues of integrity and honesty. Perhaps you would like a reminder of your own honesty?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=11745&page=1&pp=15

Let me give you some advice, Norval. Stop posting in this thread. People here are able to think. After looking through all the posts, they can decide for themselves who are the logical ones, and who are those that desperately want everyone to believe some piece of crap. And yes, with each successive post, your credibility is further eroded.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Wow, thank you for that great advice. I will surly follow such astute reasoning.

On second thought, have you ever had one of those?, it remains proven by SL9 and the math done by others that comets breaking up don’t make Cunningham / Smart types of crater chains. They do splatter over thousands of miles apart all over Jupiter though.

Enjoy your read over there? FOCLMMFAO

 

[SkinWalker]

"Cunningham / smart" craters only exist in your fantasy world, Norval. Your SL-9 correlation proves nothing with their regard.

The mark of all great pseudoscience is the corruption of common knowledge.