craterchains (Norval said:
Not at all I would love to see that evidence.
Craterchains, natural or ?
- Thread starter craterchains (Norval
- Start date
- Status
Not at all I would love to see that evidence.
what the heck, guess I'll post this here too.
Actually the THEORY was published to NASA in November of 2002, at their request. And again as a mater of public record, per their suggestion applied for funding if I remember in March of 2003. We were contacted on Dec 27th via email to apply for a grant that had a closing of submission of intent on Jan 14th. Great lead time, NOT!
A scan through NASA's submissions for research requests should net you something on it. You may have to formally join though, but I am not sure on that.
No, we didn’t get the funding and didn’t really expect to, but we did get some recognition and acknowledgement that we were the first with that idea. So in essence it is published theory requested by NASA for evaluation.
Actually the THEORY was published to NASA in November of 2002, at their request. And again as a mater of public record, per their suggestion applied for funding if I remember in March of 2003. We were contacted on Dec 27th via email to apply for a grant that had a closing of submission of intent on Jan 14th. Great lead time, NOT!
A scan through NASA's submissions for research requests should net you something on it. You may have to formally join though, but I am not sure on that.
No, we didn’t get the funding and didn’t really expect to, but we did get some recognition and acknowledgement that we were the first with that idea. So in essence it is published theory requested by NASA for evaluation.
Appeal to authority fallacy
Despite the credibility of those that look at it does not mean it’s correct.
Despite the credibility of those that look at it does not mean it’s correct.
Hey, lets all hope we are wrong because; the repercussions of ETI discovery is one thing, and the potential of discovering of ETI with weapons of this nature having been used in our solar system is a rational possibility of actual ETI contact. You are correct WCF, just because we have been taken seriously doesn’t mean we are correct. And, we wish we were wrong. Yet after two years of research into crater chains and just starting to scratch the surface of the Mars anomalies noted by astronomers in the last month we are discovering more possible evidence than we ever imagined. It takes a whole lot of time to research the radio bands, so too with re-searching available pictures of our solar system. I think we all seek answers, it’s the answers that are sometimes hard to accept that will get you. Time to get back to research and re-searching.
Norval
Norval
And that is Persol?
I have a meteor/comet. It breaks into saw 12 pieces. They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line. This is observable in the bomb photos that I showed, and the excel screenshot I posted. The weight distribution (the 'widening and shrinking' of you chains) was clearly shown in the Columbia breakup. All it takes is the right combination of speed and drag. Now please point out where this is flawed.
I watched the Columbia breakup on cnn, I watched the search for debre, I looked at the pictures that were released on the news, the net etc., I looked at the still pictures taken from the videos and the radar tracking. Not one piece of the Columbia debre made a crater, some were hot, started fires, other just laying on the ground, another penetrated the surface (embedded) but no craters. The debre was spread out over several States.
Nothing about the Columbia incident resembles this:
Doesn't drag require atmosphere?
Nothing about the Columbia incident resembles this:
Doesn't drag require atmosphere?
Last edited:
Persol
Your drag hypothesis requires atmosphere where there is none. SL9 did elongate over time, and also widened its separation on that axis. Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
It requires a four-dimensional plan, not a two as yours only shows. The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact. You are thinking, and that is what it takes, lots of thought. Keep in mind the basic premise that in space once an object is in motion it will stay in motion until some factor like atmosphere, or a gravitational field is encountered. The tapering of ends are only on a few of the chains, not all. The largest chains, say 40 – 60 km wide craters show no sign of this tapering.
WCF
The comments about these chains by scientists are words on the pages and must be read besides just looking at the photos. My eyes are tired, and my brain mushed, by all the articles I have read. Many of those comments show changes of attitudes over the decades as these types of chains were found and photographed. I would really like to see some of the photos of crater chains that are listed but we have never seen pictures of!?
There is much more yet to be learned and debated, I agree. I do hope I am responding to the real questions being presented here, of course the ones that are of obviously not I ignore.
Your drag hypothesis requires atmosphere where there is none. SL9 did elongate over time, and also widened its separation on that axis. Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
It requires a four-dimensional plan, not a two as yours only shows. The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact. You are thinking, and that is what it takes, lots of thought. Keep in mind the basic premise that in space once an object is in motion it will stay in motion until some factor like atmosphere, or a gravitational field is encountered. The tapering of ends are only on a few of the chains, not all. The largest chains, say 40 – 60 km wide craters show no sign of this tapering.
WCF
The comments about these chains by scientists are words on the pages and must be read besides just looking at the photos. My eyes are tired, and my brain mushed, by all the articles I have read. Many of those comments show changes of attitudes over the decades as these types of chains were found and photographed. I would really like to see some of the photos of crater chains that are listed but we have never seen pictures of!?
There is much more yet to be learned and debated, I agree. I do hope I am responding to the real questions being presented here, of course the ones that are of obviously not I ignore.
No drag does not require a atmosphere! The drag is gravity on a vector. When a comet or asteroid brakes up, gravity gradient pulls it apart into a line formation.
I think I did address that in my above post, WCF.
I don't see why the ends need to be taperd?
Need? Not sure what yu mean by a "need to be tapered".
It is possible that the angle of those photos only make the ends appear that way?
It is possible that the angle of those photos only make the ends appear that way?
Good. You watched it. Then you would have seen the shape of the debri as it was breaking up in the sky. It is the same shape as these crater chains. The lack of a crate is due only to material and size. There are many pieces of a meteor that do not 'land' as well.FieryIce said:
No.FieryIce said:
Your drag hypothesis requires atmosphere where there is none.
Well no... it doesn't.
Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size.
The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
Funny. Basic physics would tell you that X and Y is needed, Z is not.
The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact.
Funny yet again. It just so happens that time IS included. Otherwise the objects would not seperate.
So, you have yet to show where this is flawed.
Well no... it doesn't.
Assumption that an object is going to break up into pieces the same size and mass is flawed.
Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size.
The excel program is incapable of demonstrating the +/- factors of XYZ trajectory factors of multiple sized pieces.
Funny. Basic physics would tell you that X and Y is needed, Z is not.
The fourth dimension is the time necessary to achieve separation before impact.
Funny yet again. It just so happens that time IS included. Otherwise the objects would not seperate.
So, you have yet to show where this is flawed.
Glad you had a funny, now go back to school. You Wrote "They all still land in the same exact place UNLESS there is drag, which causes them to impact in a line." WCF corrected you also. We both pointed out the grav. factor. It also stands to reason many scientists would use excel if it worked on this type of complex problem. You really should read up on space physics motion properties, or go ask your teacher.
You wrote, "Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size."
Maybe you should change educators?
You wrote, "Well that's nice... because I never assumed that. Objects of the same size and mass would not seperate. I assumed objects of different size."
Maybe you should change educators?
You really should read up on space physics motion properties
It is reasonable for anyone to conclude, if you’ve been following the threads here, that Persol is light years ahead of you when it comes to physics, and that your so-called ‘research’ is pedestrian at best and does not even qualify as a high school science project.
Give it up and try to salvage some dignity, if at the very least, a shred.
It is reasonable for anyone to conclude, if you’ve been following the threads here, that Persol is light years ahead of you when it comes to physics, and that your so-called ‘research’ is pedestrian at best and does not even qualify as a high school science project.
Give it up and try to salvage some dignity, if at the very least, a shred.
If Persol's idea worked, Dr. Bottke would have used it also,,, Q? you might also think of changing schools.
Let's see... so far craterchains has demonstrated the following: casual approach to evidence, irrefutable hypothesis, spurious similarities, appeals to authority, seeking mysteries, explanation by scenario, refusal to revise, and the "Galileo effect" (they scorned him, too).
His quickness to cite the interest of science in him, but his disdain for science.....
If it looks like it... smells like it.... it must be.... pseudoscience!
His quickness to cite the interest of science in him, but his disdain for science.....
If it looks like it... smells like it.... it must be.... pseudoscience!
- Status