Assumptions in science 8b.) We face an impending threat of cosmic impact? ●The Craters Themselves

 

Click HERE for part 1

Part 1 explores the evidence with comets, asteroids & meteors & discovers no supporting evidence whatsoever for the existence of comets as icy bodies from a theoretical "Oort Cloud" and finds evidence instead of dry, rocky bodies subject to massive voltage difference as cosmic speeds meaning sudden changes causing violent reactions.  Friction is not the only force on landing & heat not the only force in space.

That is half the story, what of the assumed "impact craters" of their supposed landing evidence? Have we got a single account of eyewitness to a crater who has actually witnessed the impact? No. So are there then other candidates that we have witnessed? As it turns out, yes, we do!

2) The evidence with craters we already see.

The assumption of craters all resulting from impacts is to some degree an understandable one. A "late heavy bombardment" period was even invented to explain away the extensive cratering, especially on moons, although no reasonable explaination is given for where these comets/asteroids/meteors might have come from. It seems logical, but surprisingly all the evidence points to the contrary. The evidence that direct ground impacts are less widespread than we currently think I actually think is quite conclusive. How many are caused by EM phenomena, volcanism or other factors remains an open question.

Below : Planetary scarring and craters. 

Below: It's not widely known that electrical planetary scarring can be easily reproduced in a lab. 

While the large scarring on Mars does not appear to be impact related, the tiny ones surely are since Mars is nearby to an asteroid belt where debris will be simelar to Mars in charge and realistically able to endure the frictional forces of Mars thin atmosphere. Such craters as impacts ARE supported by evidence. (Below)

Below: Applying what we learned in the above clips to our own moon. 

Below: The prospect of two to six "Bullseye Craters" being from two perfectly scaled, 90° direct hit contemporary impacts is so unlikely there should not even be one in the solar system, yet there are dozens in one region of our moon alone.

Deduce rather than assume. 

It's clear from many of the craters on solar system moons that they are not impact craters. Here are 5 that are intuitive:

 

1) They are too vast and shallow. 

2) Usually there is no debris present in the crater itself.

3) If they were indeed impact craters the moons would have been pulverized to dust at cosmic speeds.

5) The craters also demonstrate an overwhelming set of characteristics indicating a direct 90° strike occured rather than a side glance. Electric arc discharge craters always hit from this angle. 

More here 

A period of chaos in the orbital positions of planets better explains this cratering, perhaps a disruption or capture event, where the planets would have come into close and regular contact with each other before settling into current positions, causing electric arc discharge cratering, scarring among other things including impact craters themselves. 

Too vast and shallow.

It is immediately obvious to anyone  (once pointed out) that most craters, given the outrageous cosmic speeds achieved in space, that any moon or asteroid hit full on, hit glancing, or even just barely clipped, would pulverize that body to powder in an instant. No conceivable scenario could avoid this outcome. Only electrical arc discharge plasma cratering can account for these craters.

Nothing can survive such large high velocity impacts

It can safely be said that direct ground impact events where catastrophic destruction happens rather than just debris hitting the ground, are likely even rarer than we have been lead to believe, perhaps almost never happening all.  This is not to say the air explosions are not devastating, but unlikely to be civilization ending. The plasma electric arc discharges themselves may pose a bit more of a threat. A solar flare, micronova or CME perhaps the greatest. I don't think we have enough OBSERVATIONAL evidence to really say. I hope to have cast enough doubt on the traditional interpretation of evidence that those reading this would ask the  questions required to bring this important  topic back from the graveyard of progress called the Lambda-CDM cosmology.

😀

Click HERE for part 1

CLICK HERE FOR THE HOMEPAGE

Sources & citations not embedded in the post

Craters and Geological features

• Dichotomy in both sides of the Moon (136). The far side if heavily cratered and with no 'Maria'.

• Dichotomies in Callisto and Ganymede (137). Very different evolution due to Late Heavy Bombardment.

• Mars hemispheres dichotomy (138). Southern is cratered and 58 km in depth, while northern is flat and its crust is just 32 km.

• According to 'Earth Impact Database' there are 190 confirmed craters on our planet, most of them being circular (139). Meteorites should have fallen almost totally vertical (within +-15 degrees). Probabilities are meaningless (152). The flour experiments of JPL Laboratory (NASA) show how inclined impacts produce oval craters (140). Electric fields are always perpendicular to surface (152). Comparing with experiments published in papers (142), and filmed in videos (141) (143) it is clear that Most Craters can be proven Electrically driven.

• Polygonal craters (hexa, penta and other regular forms) are NOT explained by impacts. However, they have been created using electricity (144).

• Aligned craters in the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Pluto, Ganymede, Callisto and even Phobos! (145). Did meteorites fragmented just previous to impact in all such little bodies with no atmosphere? Unlikely.

• Craters with central peaks: these are generally explained as bounces of liquid material. It's hard to explain the secondary craters right in the centre of the peaks (several km high some) (146).

• Bull-eye craters: concentric (Robin Hood) and highly unlikely by impact. Sometimes there are groups up to 4 rings (147).

• Rampart craters: at elevations over the surrounding terrain and surrounded by a moat. It's well explained by EDM (Electrical Machining). They are huge fulgamites. (148)

• Spherules: created by arc discharges in experiments. (Mars, Venus and Saturn) (149).

• Rilles (estuaries, canals): they are said to be "sunken lava tubes", but there are NO visible remains. They have vertical walls (Luna, Valles Marineris) and several rilles crater chains following the shape. They are longer than volcanic tubes on Earth (150).

• There are 'Mixed craters' (lightning embankment) such as Tycho, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes and Ptolemy. Electrical erosion and fusion is a characteristic of electric craters (151) .

• Fusion and vitrification are characteristic of electric arc discharges (155). It is believed that it can produced by impacts, but the heat dissipates too quickly. The heat transfer in the rock takes a large span approximately 21 mm/min in limestone (154).

• Some of the alleged 'impact craters' hare humongous: Rheasilvia (90% of Vesta), Aitken (70% of Moon, Veneneia 70% of Vesta, Odysseus (42% of Tethys), Turgis (40% of Iapetus), Herschel (35% of Mimas), Evander (34% of Dione), Caloris (32% of Mercury), Yalode (28% of Ceres), Tirawa (24% of Rhea), Gertrude (21% of Titania), Dorothy (21% Charon), Stickney (around 17% of Phobos), Rembrandt (15% Mercury), Chicxulub (1.4% of Earth) (162). And little moons were not destroyed by the impacts!

"Despite the enormous size of the Valles Marineris chasm on Mars, the mechanism responsible for the formation of these unique troughs remains unknown" (156).

• Olympus Mons formation is another colossal mystery (157), especially the scarp where it is located and the surrounding ridges and ravines.

• Density anomalies in Mars (158) especially in equatorial regions. Same could be said about density of comets, which we've seen are not made of ice (163).

• Filamentary network of "valles" in Venus (159). Lightning in high pressure gas causes this type of Lichtenberg Patterns (160). At low atmospheric pressure cratering is common (161).

CLICK HERE FOR full SOURCES AND CITATIONS referenced above

If there were such a thing as "Global Average Temperature " how would we measure it? Could that determine public understanding of science regarding Climate Changes?

"Global Average Mean Temperature"

Sounds legit right?

Not so fast, getting such a figure of any worthwhile accuracy is frought with practical limitations. So many limitations as to render it a nonsense concept in every practical sense.

Here is a good case against the reasoning put forward to create a weaponised principle for use in the Climate Change propaganda arsenal.

This is English version I'm hosting of the Danish
original (appearing HERE )which proposes:


The global temperature does not exist, and every different strategy to work it out yields a different result. The best merhod is explained and by that we see the temperature has decreased 

(since 2015)

HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature data collected by the Hadley Center at the UK Met Office and the land surface temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. This clearly shows a decreasing temperature trend even though the CO2 concentration in the air has increased in the same period

The CO2 measurements under the auspices of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): 

woodfortrees.org is a website that collects temperature data from all the major players involved in this. The HADCRUT data is one of several such temperature data series.

One of the others is RSS (Remote Sensing Systems), which processes NASA's satellite data (from several satellites). These data provide a similar picture:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/plot/rss/from:2015/to:2023/trend

Perhaps the best satellite data group is at UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville). I have already mentioned John Christy and Roy Spencer who are particularly known for having developed and been responsible for the operation of satellite measurements of parameters in the atmosphere. They have both worked at UAH in collaboration with NASA. Their satellite data has been verified several times by comparing the data with temperature measurements from weather balloons (we therefore have two independent systems). The plot from the RSS data also gives us a downward trend:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2023/trend

Note that satellite data has a much better coverage of the earth than ground measurements.
In addition to this, it can be said that neither the sea ice in the Arctic nor the inland ice in Greenland has decreased in recent years (apart from the usual seasonal variations). In fact, an increase has been recorded with both. 

The Danish Meteorological Institute is responsible for monitoring the ice in Greenland. Here we see a clear increase:  https://electroverse.co/ezoimgfmt/i0.wp.com/electroverse.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20220829-crop.png?w=846&ssl=1&ezimgfmt=ng :webp/ngcb1

The average temperature in the large part of Antarctica has been fairly stable for the last 40 years (You must subscribe to TV2 Play to see the full article): 
https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/det-har-vaert-donn-stabilt-i-40-ar/13960869/

The essence of the article is: 

Stable measurements

 

Well, you have good results from 1980 until today, and the measurements of the last 40 years are probably surprising to many. - In some areas we see strong melting, but in the area we are focusing on and which we think is some of the most important areas to study, it is still stable, says Østerhus.

– Du snakker litt mot dommedagesprofetiene nå?

– Ja- Yes, and I hope I'm right, but we can't take that for granted, says the researcher. - The climate models show that something will happen in the areas we measure, but so far we haven't seen any significant changes . The ice shelf we are studying has not become any thinner, quite the opposite, says Østerhus.

 

– Mange snakker om at Antarktis vil smelte, tar de feil?

–  It is true that in some areas the ice is melting. In the north, the sea ice is melting. It does so in Greenland and in parts of Antarctica as well, but what really matters when it comes to sea level rise, luckily it happens very little, the researcher points out. He is cautious about all scaremongering about the climate.

– Som forsker er jeg forsiktig med å komme med slike påstander uten å ha skikkelig god dekning for det. Det tror jeg kan slå kraftig tilbake på oss hvis vi fremstiller det som om at det skjer dramatisk store endringer, sier Østerhus.

Naturlige variasjoner?

– Det kan være naturlige variasjoner bortsett fra i noen områder, forteller han.

I Antarktis er det to gigantiske og svært viktige is-bremmer.

Dette er Ross og Filchner-Ronne, i tillegg til noen mindre.

 An ice brink is typically a few hundred meters thick at the front, and can be as much as 2000 meters thick elsewhere. Inside the continental shelf in the far south of the Weddell Sea, heavy bottom water is formed during the winter when the surface water is cooled to the freezing point and freezes into ice.

Når sjøis blir dannet, frigir isen salt til det omkringliggende vannet. Dette vannet som da blir ekstra salt blir på frysepunktet så tungt at det synker ned til bunnen.

There is far too much activism that characterizes the media image and provides feedback both to politicians and ordinary people. Those who believe this propaganda are those who do not investigate for themselves. The Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet compares the state of the unsuspecting population and politicians to a psychosis. Humanity has experienced a similar influence mechanism, he says, both during the witch persecutions, under the Hitler regime, Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge. For my own part, I would like to add the Bjugn case.