Starship Asterisk*

Multiple Ringed Craters

Multiple Ringed Craters are those that have more than one crater rim surrounding the center point. There are basically two types of these. Both are caused by explosive forces.

The largest ones are thought to be caused by such a large explosive force that it liquefies the surrounding terrain and leaves rings like a pebble drooped in a pond. This is NOT the type I have questions about.

The smaller variety are mostly interesting to me because they are caused by two or more explosive forces, in rapid succession in the same place. There are many craters that have two or three rims one inside the other in photos, and some with more. Now what are the odds of that? Just blind chance? To my mind, there are far, far too many of these smaller multiple ringed craters to have happened just by chance.

Norval

so you're suggesting instead a race of laser toting aliens did it? and you think this is more likely than random chance?

Laser is an interesting suggestion, not one I am going to pursue but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for the suggestion.
Something other than “random chance” is very apparent.
Since your specialty is “mostly related to the formation of Early Type galaxies and star clusters” we just might reserve your suggestion for quoting and respecting your anonymity so other specialists wouldn’t have direct assess to you.

“mostly related to the formation of Early Type galaxies and star clusters”

That was me not Cosmo_uk, I'm the astronomer he's a cosmologist. The difference in names should have made it clear. I deal mostly with galaxies in the nearby Univers (i.e within about 50Mpc), cosmology deals with things on much bigger scales. I.e greater than 1Gpc.

Mildly threatening messages from a couple of crackpots like yourself is hardly likely to make me more likely to reveal my identity now is it? Besides if your bright enough to find evidence for something no one else ever has you can presumably figure out who I am. There arent that many people in my field.

I'm not afraid of having specialists in astronomy review my work, it happens all the time, I've had my papers peer reviewed. However judging from much of what you say I'd guess that the specialists that usually deal with you wear white coats, I have no need for them.

yeah I think you got us both confused then. Can I ask why there would be a war on Callisto and Ganymede? And if there was why are there no signs of civilisation on our moon. You wouldn't want to just bomb an empty landscape. Presumably the moon is covered in wreckage from this war. Perhaps you should build yourself a rocket and go there with a metal detector

Perhaps you could link to some pictures of these multiple rings?

I for one wouldn't mind seeing images of small craters that resemble those described.

30 seconds googling for "multiple ring impact basins" turns up some interesting things:

http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/crater.htm

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/planets/cratform.htm

The very largest impacts create concentric rings of fault scarps hundreds of kilometers in diameter. These features are called Multiple-Ring Impact Basins. One theory is that the ground motion from super-impacts is so great that huge waves develop in the crust and the crust ruptures at areas of especially violent wave motion.

Either that or giant-space-lasers. I'm really not sure.

I like the woo woo quote here: http://www.kingdomofyhwh.com/discus/mes ... 1155225186

In fact I like it so much that I will re-post it here:

#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.
#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.
#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.
#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.
#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.
#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)
#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.
#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.
#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.
#10.) Visit http://www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.

even more interesting quote is here:

What's disturbing about Norval and Gale is that they have openly requested "funding" so that they may be able to continue their "research."

damn, it gets better.

Norval... and Gale... use their screen names, CraterChains and FieryIce, respectively

I never noticed a connection between two

It wasnt till I looked at their profiles the other day that I clocked them.

Nice article, really gives a perfect description of their behaviour and "logic". Still now that they've been called I don't expect to see much more of them.

I'm guessing they must be running out of boards to join now.

If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.

The above comment was meant to defend the belief in UFO's by "woohoos."

So let's discuss the burden of proof for the benefit of Norval and Gale. Generally the burden of proof is accepted to lie on the shoulders of the person making a claim that disagrees with what's generally accepted. Einstein had the burden of proof for relativity (he did so mathematically, extrapolating from other things that had been done experimentally. Others proved relativity experimentally later). Galileo had the burden of proof of showing the earth revolved around the sun (he showed discrepancies between the geo-centric model and actual observations were not under the helio-centric model. Precise measurements eventually showed the earth did revolve around the sun). Shoemaker had the burden of showing that an extra-terrestrial impact caused Barringer Crater (he found shocked quartz, which forms only under extremely high pressures not attributable to volcanic activity. This was similar to nuclear blast craters). In all these cases, the burden of proof rested on those proposing a change from the "null hypothesis."

Now Shoemaker's case is a doubly good one for this discussion because it relates to the formation of craters, but also because there are some assumptions involved. Basically, he reasoned Barringer was formed from an asteroid impact because it was the only known event that could provide enough energy to displace that much earth fast enough to form shocked quartz. It was not remotely logical to think it was a man-made nuclear bomb because there is no evidence at all that any man possessed a nuclear bomb however many thousands of years ago. In fact, the biggest bombs we've ever built could not dig a crater that big.

Other geologists and astronomers were reluctant to believe it was possible because they'd never observed such an event, but gradually came to accept the change from the idea that it was a volcanic feature
1.) Because Shoemaker had presented evidence to the contrary
2.) He had identified an alternate theory
3.) There were observations to support his alternate theory

Specifically regarding the observations, we have observed many, many meteors. We have also observed impacts on the earth, the moon and Jupiter. We have found meteorites on the earth and on Mars (thanks to the Mars rovers). We have identified asteroids and comets in orbits that bring them into proximity with every place we have observed craters, with kinetic energies sufficient to form all but the biggest (which likely occurred in the chaotic early solar system). We have identified a mode of destruction of the impactors.

Destruction of the impactors is actually testable. You can build a really expensive rail gun to shoot little rocks at big rocks at high speeds and see what happens under various conditions. Also, the impactor from the Deep Impact mission struck the comet Temple 1 with a velocity of something like 40,000 miles per hour. The impactor is believed to have disintegrated. You could go there and search the crater for signs of impactor. You can test the overall theory as a whole if you happen to be fortunate (or unfortunate as the case may be) enough to observe a major impact.

Now, regarding the theory proposed by Craterchains:

The theory as it stands is that something else caused the craters. That by itself is fine. Many other people have asked themselves if it is possible, but have not found 1, 2 or 3 above. Craterchains believes he has 1 - evidence that contradicts the theory (just as Shoemaker's shocked quartz contradicted the volcanic origin theory). The links also claim 2 exists, an alternate theory (UFO's), but he has avoided associating himself with that theory here.

Namely, his contradiction is that no one can find impactor remains in major craters. More to the point, he's contradicting the mode of destruction that is a part of Shoemaker's alternate theory. Also, in this thread, he is contradicting the theory regarding the formation of multi-ringed craters, which is closely related as it too deals with stresses in rocks. A lot of modelling has been done showing that impactor destruction is not only feasible, but expected in a high velocity impact. I don't have any links and am not quite sure where to look, but I suspect some experimental support might exist, too.

So, have I summarized things correctly? If so, in order to convice me some change in theory is needed, I need as equivalent evidence to that which convinced me of the current theory in the first place. If you can show via either experiment or approximate calculations that a rock at moving 60,000 mph (or even half that) hitting an object of equivalent strength and density can reasonably be expected to survive, I will apologize and give your theory more dedicated consideration and research. Others have done very detailed calculations. I bet I can do some rough numbers on paper based on acceleration, mass, and stress that would support their calculations.

You have all missed the primary point of lesson one in "NO IMPACTORS".
Earth is NOT the only place with craters. MANY places with far less gravity show NO IMPACTORS when they should.

Now in lesson two, possibly because of the many detractors posted, the point is again lost? Point two is that as with point one, in places with far less gravity one would expect to find SOME impactors (not little pieces) that made the impacting, if such impactors made the crater to begin with.

Point two is that, again, in the smaller multiple ringed craters in places where there is very little gravity, and those being attributed to more than one explosion occurring in the same place in rapid succession. Not all, so called, impactors will be striking at such high speeds.

A bit more than 30 seconds may be required in researching this adequately, yah think?
Maybe google and wikipidia aren't the best ways of searching?

Norval

You have made several errors in your assumptions, that the gravity the body being hit is of major importance, it is not, as has been pointed out the free fall velocity of an object falling from infinity onto the Earth is indeed 11km/s. However many objects in the solar system, comets being the obvious example whip round with velocities in excess of 10s of km/s and therefore the gravity of the object is not always the main driver for impact energy.

Second most planetary bodies that are of a reasonable size (i.e mars, titan, io etc) have atmospheric and tectonic activity that tends to hide craters.

Third you would not expect to see any impactors on smaller sized bodies, anything not totally vapourised would not be held by the weak gravity of an asteroid for example.

Fourth I have never seen one picture that look compellingly artificial, the ones on your site are frankly laughable. If they are the best evidence you have after trolling through thousands of images I would begin to think that maybe you have a point that something wierd is going on, but in the sense that there are far to few of these random alignments.

Fifth your point two in that list is utter rubbish and shows you lack any understanding of the subject. On a small body a multiple ring system can of course be formed by a rapid succession of impacts, it results from an asteroid/comet breaking into two or more objects just prior to impact, as they both came from the same progenitor they will both have the same velocity. You seem to think that both impacts are independent, of course there not, they came from the same object with the same speed, they then strike the same area because in the time between the impacts the body has not had time to rotate very far.

Sixth true to form after being blasted on your previous post you have attempted to move to some other line of argument, this time about multiple ring impacts.

How about you supply some EVIDENCE. Some calculations, some maths something that backs you up quantitatively, maybe you could provide us with the actual computed odds of these things being natural, and your workings. This is science, you can't try and throw your weight around or convince people by repitition. All you are succeeding in doing is proving how ignorant you are. Provide some facts and figures or I think you may find yourself unwelcome on your 4,5...100th discussion board.

astro
You should read allot more and type much less. You may learn just how far off of truth you are.

Norval

No more dodging the point Norval. Answer my questions, where is your evidence? lets have some pictures and some Maths.

You can't expect scientists to accept your theories if you dont use the scientific method. Evidence please.

Finally a last question: If it writes like a crank, thinks like a crank and acts like a crank what is it?

astro
No more dodging the point Norval. Answer my questions, where is your evidence? lets have some pictures and some Maths.
ANSWER; The evidence is in the pictures from many sources, go look for them. If you are going to try and act like a peer review scientist you should at least do your own research for photos. As you no doubt have done a bit of "looking over our sites", you will note that there is no mention of missing impactors, nor multiple ringed crater structures, yet. When it comes to doing the math, we have found that the more posters using distractions, detractors, slander, lies, and deceptions in the threads we post questioning something, the more likely that deeper research is warranted on that subject. Your attitude and methodology of posting says allot. Thank you.

You can't expect scientists to accept your theories if you don't use the scientific method. Evidence please.
ANSWER; We don't expect anything from the (so called) scientists. The "evidence" you ask for will be in the pictures we will soon post to our sites questioning these anomalous points about craters and multiple ringed craters. Prior to using any photos, we copy and document the entire page where they were posted, we never alter or enhance any of the photos we use, we only use photos from original sources.

Finally a last question: If it writes like a crank, thinks like a crank and acts like a crank what is it?
ANSWER; Finally, one last question; If many write like many are trying to detract, distract, twist, deceive, lie, and slander the posters questioning aspects of given public information, how can we not question their motives for posting?

Norval

If anyone would like to know the relavance of my previous quote, I strongly encourage you to have a look at

http://www.kingdomofyhwh.com/discus/mes ... 1130810009

its a prime example of Norval (craterchains) and Gales (FieryIce) usual tactics. Its also hilarious btw. In case it should mysteriously dissappear I do have a copy.

Norval you seem to be confused, if you are looking for vindication for your theories, which your repeated posts and websites indicates you are most definitely are, you're going about it the wrong way. Conventional science using logic and mathematics have proven to a high degree of confidence that craters are formed by essentially random impacts of asteroids/meteors.

But the two most striking aspects of the cratering record are that the spatial distribution of craters is indistinguishable from a random distribution

(from http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/bindsc01/node2.html talking about Venus)

You claim this is not so, but all you have is a few pictures that you have cherry picked from tens of thousands available. The fact that you continue to come back here indicates that you are desperate for some acknowledgement of the merits of your theory. However your not going to get that until you offer some proof. You say that the odds of there being no visible impactors is negligible, well back up that assertion with an estimate of how many you would expect to survive the impact, and then not be destroyed by geological processes.

I dont really understant your lest question, I think you mixed up some words, but if I understand it I guess your asking my motivations for posting here.

Simple answer: when rubbish and unscientific ramblings like yours go unquestioned some people may think its because they have merit. Before you know it people are trying to get it taught in schools alongside ID or whatever brand of nonsense is popular that week. Science progresses because it has rules that everyone has signed up to, they've served us very well for the last 300 years, I see no reason to remove them because you don't like them.

What ever, , ,

Norval

Hi astro

If anyone would like to know the relavance of my previous quote, I strongly encourage you to have a look at

http://www.kingdomofyhwh.

i wondered about the foundations of createrchains thoughts & looked on the site as above ..i'm not a scientist, but i found the theology appeared to be built upon shifting sand ..the rest crumbles along with the 'woolly jumpers'

Linx

Hi linx

Well I know very little about theology but my guess is that it is as poorly thought out as the "scientific" parts.

astro_uk wrote:have a look at

http://www.kingdomofyhwh.com/discus/mes ... 1130810009

Not that I ever seriously believed Norval and Gale were serious about their fringe theory of prehistoric interplanetary war...

I dont know, they are pretty long lived to be people having a laugh, they've been using the same tactics and arguments (if you can call them that) on discussion boards for years, which makes me worry that they are actually serious. Which is a shame.

To be fair people seriously believe a lot wierder stuff, scientology, aliens behind comets, the torah/bible/qu'ran etc.

Hi astro,
God is spirit & God's Word (the Bible) is a spiritual book to be spiritually discerned by those that are born of the Spirit, thus to understand the Godly truths within one must have spiritual enlightenment

sadly at Craterchains website a view of the spiritual appears to be mixed or superceded with human understanding

i enjoy reading & learning from sound science & scientists at APOD ..i'll let you judge about the scientific parts ..but i would say he's been weighed in the balance & found wanting!

Lin x