Postulate: Round Craters are Not From Asteroids

PostedÊ-Ê20 Dec 2003Ê:Ê 11:11:59 Ê Ê Ê

From LB
LB,

Congradulations for your "half vast" comments. Even after I presented the Plasma Strike evidence with pictures, you and Mac have not made comment on it nor respectfully retracted your insults as to my erroneous presumptions by sighting your superior presumptions that gives you the right to call anything in error. And Tom, Im surprised that you have so much to say in other subjects, yet you have no more to say about Plasma Strikes being the cause of craters, other than direct me to pay you for an evaluation of the suggested Plasma Theories. How much comment can I get from you for a buck? I just need a yes its plausible or no its not plausible.

By the way, LB, I know the source of the needed plasma beams on all planets and moons because I see what you havent detected yet and I will not even give you a hint of it here because you will surely capitalize on the idea and run with it.

Meta

************

<< 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

Meta, I've noticed a problem with your conclusion that the plasma "craters" and lunar/planetary craters are one in the same.

The problem is that lunar and planatary craters usually have "rays" of ejecta that "splashed" away when the crater was first formed. Any cases, to the best of my knowledge, in which the rays are not obvious have been found to be old or disturbed craters.

Your second *.gif image of a plasma "crater" has no rays. I suspect, then, that they have altogether different origins.

I also hope that you will respond to the images posted by Mr. Van Flandern and myself, and admit that--or explain your objection to the idea that--these are counterexamples to your original statement that all craters are nearly circular.

<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 />Im surprised that you have ... no more to say about Plasma Strikes being the cause of craters, other than direct me to pay you for an evaluation of the suggested Plasma Theories. How much comment can I get from you for a buck? I just need a yes its plausible or no its not plausible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our service gets you a review by a professional, not by me. I have no expertise in "plasma strikes". If you just want a "yes" or "no", I'd guess "no" based on what I've seen argued by the Velikovskians.

I gave you my reasons why craters are mainly asteroid impacts before. The number of objects in Earth-crossing orbits is fairly well known, and the predicted collision rate agrees crudely with the observed crater counts (the main uncertainty being crater erasure by glaciation). So we have a known cause that *must* be acting and seems sufficient. We presently have no need for another cause. -|Tom|-

Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Congradulations for your "half vast" comments. Even after I presented the Plasma Strike evidence with pictures, you and Mac have not made comment on it nor respectfully retracted your insults as to my erroneous presumptions by sighting your superior presumptions that gives you the right to call anything in error. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow">ANS: The reason I have not responded is simple. You made statements and raised questions as to why craters are generally quasi circular. I have responded and given good rational causes for the general trend to be circular. I have also stated that I have seen trenches and evidence of glancing blows or impacts according to the experts, of which I am not. I see no advantage to then spinning off and argueing about other possible causes of craters in that I would anticipate there most certainly are.</font id="yellow">

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Ok, very well gentlemen,

I see you are going to sit down on this one and feel satisfied that you have done your job already.
That means I will have to press on myself with a different group of plasma experts and develop new theory.
Please dont be surprised that I copied our discussions and use it in new articles as an introduction to Plasma Strike Theory.

On to the next topic.

Meta

i think the asteroids do cause round or near round craters, and btw, i think your statement was flawed from the very beginning. You say round craters or near round craters aren't formed by asteroids and meteors to start out with, claiming that asteroids can't be going at an oblique angle, then make a sharp turn and decide to hit the planet head on, but that point right there is irrelevant. You see, asteroids and meteors CAN hit the surface of a planet or moon head on. You've been arguing the wrong thing the whole time, i think. Looking at your original statement, it doesn't matter whether an asteroid or meteor can cause gashes into a surface or not. I would look back onto that if i were you and maybe reword what you're trying to argue? That's just what it looks like to me, please correct me if i'm wrong.