Postulate: Round Craters are Not From Asteroids

Clean it up, gentlemen. Deal with the science, not each other. -|Tom|-

Craters and other surface "defects" can be caused by many natural physical processes. Large individual particles (such as meteors) or small-particle streams (such as the ions in a plasma "beam") or wave-based phenomena (such as the EM radiation in a laser "beam") are a few of the possibilities that come to mind after a bit of reflection. I suspect that there are others.

They all work in roughly the same way - by carrying energy from somewhere else and depositing it on the surface of a target object. This energy deposit typically occurs over a very short period of time - so short that some of the surface material is vaporized. (The same amount of energy, delivered to the same spot but deposited over a longer period of time, would be incapable of doing anything except warming the surface.) Material outside the "vaporization zone" is usually melted. Material outside the "melt zone" is usually pulverized. Material outside the "pulverization zone" experiences various amounts of disruption. The farther away from the impact site the less the effect.

Because they all work in roughly the same way, they all produce roughly the same outcome.

===

Any particular surface defect WAS caused by a particular physical mechanism. But if we didn't observe the actual creation of the particular defect under examination we must collect whatever evidence we can to determine what caused it.

Observation teaches us that collisions between objects in space do occur, but near misses are much more frequent. The hit ratio for the Large Particle Impact Mechanism is very small. Each process capable of producing surface defects will have its own characteristic ratio of hits to misses.

Logically that ratio will be vey small. Space is vast, and mostly empty of forms at our scale. Any process that can convey energy in enough concentration to cause a visible surface defect on one of these forms is going to have to travel long distances over long periods of time. And this energy conveying process will probably have many close encounters before it hits something.

When I look out into the universe I see lots of large individual particles moving long distances over long periods of time. I conclude that there are enough of them that they could actually be responsible for many of the surface defects I can see on the various forms that are nearby. Despite the tiny hit ratio for this mechanism.

But I do not see very many plasma beams or laser beams. In fact, I don't remember ever seeing one (unless you want to count atmospheric lightning), or ever hearing of one. If they exist, they are somewhat shy.

Maybe, on the rare occasions when thay occur, they ALWAYS hit something. The characteristic hit ratio for this process would then be 100%.

How could we know? We have zero observations.

===

But I try to keep an open mind. Absense of evidence is not, after all, evidence of absence. If Thor ever decides to put on a light show for us, I guess I'd have to reconsider. Til then I think I'll stick with volcanos and meteors as the most likely explanation.

In trying to solve the vast puzzles presented to us by the vastness of space, the plasma-strike idea seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of half vast.

Regards,
LB

You want the science, I suggest you build a large tesla coil 1.5 million volt range, adjust the frequency for longer more powerful voltage strikes and ground a piece of foil around it, as the adjustment of the frequency will provide you with what Met is describing, if you don't follow ask don't criticize.

Sparks cannot exist in vacuum, since a spark is made of air which has turned into plasma

Just because you cannot see the energy that creates the crator, does it mean that it is not there? If your vision is on a specific frequency and I am pumping out a different one, you will not detect it, but it is there and when capacitance of it becomes greater frequency increases and power thereof, so when it hit's a moving object you got a crator. Just as a meteor would do.
This is what Met is talking about:
www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/infor...r_Flare_Oct2803.html
You are thinking small, Met is thinking much larger scale, like what happenend in 540 A.D.

Gentlemen,

Let's try to concentrate on discussion of ideas rather than discussing each others psyche, please. Tom Van Flandern is a master of gentlemanly discussion and we should learn a thing or two in that regard.

I would, however, like to see your opinion, Tom, of the Plasma Strike Theories. And I am interested to know if all planets are forever locked in their orbits, ingress toward the sun or egress from the sun over periods of time?

Meta

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />I would, however, like to see your opinion, Tom, of the Plasma Strike Theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We now have a Professional Manuscript Review Service for evaluation of the theories of others, published or unpublished. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
This Message Board is primarily for discussions of Meta Science and its implications. The demands on our time are great, so neither I nor others here at Meta Research can evaluate the thousands of theories and ideas we receive, except as we can arrange through our paid service.

We have no objection if other Message Board participants wish to offer their opinions. The folks here are generally knowledgeable, so you may get advice worth much more than what you pay for it. [] -|Tom|-