Crater Research

Arch just wants some to waste their time.

Arch, that has all ready been done. There are many astronomers that have counted craters. Why not ask them?

:m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it's not too much trouble to pull the numbers from the web. So next time you or FieryIce post, i want those numbers.

And quit trying to stall. i'm giving you a chance to convince yourselves what i say has truth.

Any stalling only shows you are not willing to put your crater chains theory to test, indication you know your theory is crap.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why do you guys keep trying? obviously, the details of crator's theory haven't been posted - after numerous requests - because they don't exist. Even crator knows that the burden of proof falls to him.

How often does a scientist submit a contovercial new theory with nothing but speculation and then tell the community to prove his point for him? never, of course. If science worked that way nothing would ever get done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually Buffys alot of scientists in the past have used the "Prove me wrong" strategy, but this all goes back to the essence of peer review.

This is also the main reason why I keep pointing out to some members that the use of "Burden of Proof falls on you the theory submitter" isn't necessarily correct.

 

Different this time, Buffy. I'm requesting Norval and FieryIce to help me prove their theory wrong.

If they get evasive about those numbers......well......just goes to show how desperate they are in trying to fool the public. Although i doubt any thinking individual here will be fooled.

 

No, that is correct. They have offered NOTHING. We have offered plenty of explanations, backed up by observation, math, and science.

They have offered 'aliens did it because we are too supid to see craters'

 

the difference here (as I see it) is crater claims to have the evidence. You can't peer review someones claims without the data they were working from. There isn't any situation I can think of where a scientist would make a claim, say he has evidence but not show it and then expect to be taken seriously.

 

Well Norval when you pop up in the thread, perhaps you should consider one of two options for a proper peer review, either:

Post your evidence and explaination how the evidence relates to suggestion.

or

Retract your claim of having evidence.

Either should then be enough to cool everyone down from *itching.

 

Not that he'll do that... but that's what we're looking for.

 

As FireyIce showed this picture, then I shall comment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What has been noted by scientists and I agree with.
!. These are not caused by subsidence of surface.
2. These are not caused by volcanic activity.
3. These are not caused by a skipping rock.
4. These are not caused by electrical discharge.
5. These are not caused by tectonic activities.
Also noted by scientists, and I agree with.
1. These are / were crater chains from impacts in very rapid succession.
2. That these are unique in their nonrandom patterning.
3. That they are of a more recent development in the history of Mars.

And if you will accept that the possibility of Cunningham / Smart crater chains being formed by a broken space rock as being extremely rare, as noted by my peers in science and math. Then note that there are far too many in this one picture to allow for that theory of a broken space rock or rocks to have done this.

Next?
http://themis.asu.edu/mars-bin/mars...N_SELECT_ZOOM=ZOOM&MAP_IMG.x=508&MAP_IMG.y=87

 

I would suggest appending the Long. and Lat. reference of where the picture is from, that you are refering to.

 

Why not?

Why not?

Unlikely to me, but why not?

Also unlikely to me, but why not?

Why not?

Which scientists? Citations please.

"Cunningham / Smart" crater chains appear only to exist in your mind. You have yet to demonstrate anything extraordinary about catenae.

Other than Gale, who exactly are your peers?


The craters in this photograph are consistent with those that would be formed by fault subduction: bedrock below develops one or more faults and the loose topsoil falls into the cracks. If this isn't consistent with this type of geology, why not?

 

It looks to be around Lat 40 / Long (Easting) 280. Probably the Alba Patera region, where "Pit Chains" (not "Cunningham/Smart") are common. They're already named by researchers of Martian geology. Sorry, Norval.

 

To quote from the link that Norval already supplied, "Lat: 27.906 Lon:248.118E"; also in the url wording is the lat and lon... LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm no expert on Rock Metamorphesis or how rocks deal with Solitonic reverberation after a major meteorite's impact. But if the rock was comprised of two alternating densities and hardness, and the layers were upright rather than flat.

Code:

Before Impact:

............. Sand Surface 
|SS|HR|SS|HR|
|SS|HR|SS|HR|
|SS|HR|SS|HR|
|SS|HR|SS|HR|
|SS|HR|SS|HR|  
   

After Impact:

.S....S...... Sand Surface 
|S|HR|S|HR|
|S|HR|S|HR|    Impact down and diagonally
|S|HR|S|HR|    towards Example rock faces.
|S|HR|S|HR|
|S|HR|S|HR|  

The idea here is that the sand on the surface of the planet would suddenly have furrows created as the SS (Sandstone) is crushed by the HR (Harder Rock), this means more sand is brought to the surface (S in the surface line) and more cracks also emerge beneath the sand layer.
(this is by no means good ascii art)

 

The craters in this photograph are consistent with those that would be formed by fault subduction: bedrock below develops one or more faults and the loose topsoil falls into the cracks. If this isn't consistent with this type of geology, why not?

Especially given that the area in question is right near an inactive (hence used to be active) volcano.

 

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20020625a.html
Looks more like sinking sand aka pitholes to me.

In fact read that page it explains all about parallel faults, grabens and notibly Lava tubes that collapse creating pitholes.

Not your beloved craterchains, check that craters leave in the most cases a kind of vapour trail, either due to burning or vapours evapourating, this is a clue to what is an isn't a crater.

 

Good work stryder. That's a nice close-up view. It absolutely shows no consistency in either "crater" size or consistent "chain" conformity like what Norval and Fire suggest.

 

Indeed, this pdf file that I'm attaching covers these very structures.

To quote a few passages from Wyrick (et al, 2003):

Norval/Gale: if this is the quality of your research, why should we be inclined to accept any of your other beliefs? Indeed, this blunder also says a lot about your "peers."

Need I remind everybody: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=580806&#post580806

Wyrick, D.; Morris, A. Colton, S (2004). Distribution, morphology, and origins of Martian pit crater chains. Journal of Geophysical Research vol 109.

Wyrick, D.; et al (2003). DISTRIBUTION, MORPHOLOGY AND STRUCTURAL ASSOCIATIONS OF MARTIAN PIT CRATER CHAINS. Lunar and Planetary Science Vol. 34

 

As expected, Norval and FieryIce has evaded proof that contradicts their theory. There is only one logical conclusion:

NORVAL AND FIERYICE HAS ADMITED THEIR OWN THEORY IS RUBBISH !!!