Crater Chains, natural or not?

[FieryIce]

All the world needs is a dozen Phobos's

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FieryIce
Comparing the behavior and pattern of Shoemaker Levy 9(SL9)from these NASA images to the crater chains clearly demonstrates that tidal disruption of mud and ice comets or asteroids were not the cause of these remarkable catinas. SL9 broke up in varying sizes, thousands of kilometers apart and impacted over many days.
Crater Chain Research
What do you think?

I think Jupiter is bigger than Callisto and SL9 broke up on a pass, then came back around several weeks (months?) later, so the distance between fragments was greater than in the photos linked. For the photos linked, the meteor would have broken up on its final trajectory. Similar, but not quite the same situation.

Cool photos though - I'd never seen them before.

 

[kleinma]

what if it was created by a ring around the moon at one point in time? like saturn is now, only with larger rock fragments. Perhaps, like Earth is believed to have been, this ring was not past the Roche limit, and therefor fell back into the planet. Some of the material entering back in could have bombarded in a straight line, due to the fact that it would have been pretty straight while orbiting.

Just an idea, but sounds more realistic that being made by "Intelligence"

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by russ_watters
For the photos linked, the meteor would have broken up on its final trajectory.

This is what I have heard too. The impactor breaks up when going through the atmosphere, thereby resulting in craters-in-a-row.

 

[craterchains]

Not playing this game

 

[Nereid]

Statistics? and some questions

craterchain,

What is your definition of a catina? How objective is it? Could you get an AI program to identify catinas from pictures of planetary surfaces, with a >95% success rate?

What is the areal incidence of catinas, on each of the bodies where you've seen them? How does this compare with the areal density of single craters? crater pairs? ...

Why is "[a]sking anyone to accept that a comet breakup, or ejecta from Stickney, or even from impacts on Mars caused these catina we see on Phobos and through out our solar system, is like asking us to believe that a tornado going through a wrecking yard creates new cars."?

Can you demonstrate that the mechanical analogue you propose ("throw a handful of gravel into the air and then toss a clay ball through that mass of simulated ejecta") accurately simulates the key features of a comet breakup (or other proposed origin of catinas)?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by craterchains
Try this experiment; throw a handful of gravel into the air and then toss a clay ball through that mass of simulated ejecta. See any catinas? No.

Yes, actually you will. Try it. Throw a handful of gravel FOWARD into a lake and see how the splashes line up. Tossing a handful of gravel straight up would approximate what a meteorite would do if it were going nearly straight down - which is extremely rare. That's the piece of the puzzle you are missing: impact angle.

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your games

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by craterchains
Nereid
answers;
Paragraph 1. Try using Dr Bottky’s definition. (laffs) Yes we could, with enough money and the right programmers.

Paragraph 2. Only generally as the time and research opportunities lend themselves. But mostly this isn’t relevant to what we are researching. Note the photos of Mars at our research site, and you will see (I hope) what we mean.
Paragraph 3. Based on probability projections. Are you a person that gambles?
Paragraph 4. Was in answer to Mars’s ejecta getting in the path of Phobos having possibly created the crater chains we see.

russ_watters
Post a picture of those inline splashes please? It is far easier to use a mud bank along a river and throw gravel (be sure those pieces are all different sized gravel as would a comet break up be) at the mud. Much easier to photograph. Or accept that SL9 is the perfect example that NO CS type crater chain is going to appear. Simply physics 101 here people and the laws of probability.

For more photos, information and answers to most of the questions presented please read our site.

Perhaps I missed it, but there is no statistical analysis given on your website, nor any 'probability projections'. Without these kinds of quantitative analyses, your conclusions will be, at best, merely 'interesting'.

In particular, IMHO, you will need such analyses to convincingly rule out alternative hypotheses regarding the origins of catinas.

With thousands of images to choose from, and perhaps millions of craters in those images, all kinds of selection effects - some quite subtle - can all too easily mar even the best-intentioned research. Quantitative analyses help identify selection effects and biases.

Where you do make specific claims, you do not provide sources, data or analyses.

For example, section 3 of "Summary Report for 2003" ("Taking a closer look at these specific kinds of catina") is a list of 6 statements, but no data or references to data. In one of the six*, it should be very easy to provide at least a reference.

If it is, as you claim, 'Simply physics 101 here people and the laws of probability', then would you please provide us with the relevant diagrams, equations, and calculations?

*"5. Uniform impact timing. Scientists agree that in this type of catina the impacts all occurred uniformly at the same time." - which scientists? as reported where?

[Edit: fixed typos, tidied up formats]

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not going to go taking pictures for you, but here is another example: a sprinkler or hose. If you shoot a horizontal stream of water, it will leave a linear trail on the ground.

And we already covered the SL-9 issue. SL-9 broke up on a close pass, then came back later which allowed the fragments time to separate futher than if it had broken up just prior to impact. I'm sure you've seen the photos of what the trail looked like - a straight line of roughly even spacing. Its the same phenomenon as what you have pics of, just wider spacing.

If it is, as you claim, 'Simply physics 101 here people and the laws of probability', then would you please provide us with the relevant diagrams, equations, and calculations?

Here's a start: draw a diagram of a circle with a line of objects going toward it. Play with different orientations of the line, different deviations from a straight line, and different angles of approach. From this, you can get a rough idea of what is required to create these types of multiple impacts - and what would be required to produce a shotgun type impact pattern. Then you'll see if its reasonable or not.

Here's a quickie though: to get a shotgun type impact requires the fragments to be traveling straight down at the time of impact and be very close together vertically. The more oblique the angle and further the linear separation between fragments (tidal forces act perpendicular to the surface of the planet), the more elongated the pattern gets.

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your game

 

[Nereid]

craterchains wrote: *SNIP we assumed that you could read and had sight sufficient enough for looking at pictures, and a mind capable of cognitive pattern recognition.

Would I be correct in paraphrasing this as "we haven't done any statistical or probability analysis since we think it's obvious that the catinas in the images can only have been formed by an ET"? If so, then I must say your work is then almost a textbook case of how NOT to do science.

craterchains wrote: *SNIP Try the link to “More Information”, as we expressly address these issues Nereid and Russ have raised.

Here's what's on the page "More Information":

"Need more information and precise particulars
or
information not included on the web site?

Then we require contact from you first by email and stating why you need this information.
There is a whole lot more evidence available to substantiate this theory that ETI caused these types of crater chains and other war damage in our solar system. There also appears to be three kinds of reactions from people that hear of this discovery. The first group makes up about 60% of those talked with and they readily accept and agree that this didn't happen by chance. The second group are those that make up about 35% and because we are not credentialed with initials we couldn't possibly know what we are talking about. Then there is that last group of about 5% that have no viable argument, but insist that we are wrong. Given answers to their questions they nit pick about anything they can find and try to side track the discussion with unrelated questions. It seems that there are some that know and want all of us to know, and then there seems to be some that know and don't want anyone else to know. Send us your vote as to how you think after reading our investigations. "

Let me guess, the normal challenging and questioning parts of the scientific method - which is what I hope Russ and I are engaged in - is, in your eyes, 'nit pick[ing] about anything they can find and try[ing] to side track the discussion with unrelated questions'?

craterchains wrote: *SNIP Since Bottke’s so-called computer model failed to allow for unequal size fragments that SL9 showed, simply inject that equation. You will need to inject an “8 (rotate 90 deg. Clockwise)” equation to represent the fragment drift and separation away from each other also.

I couldn't find the equation in the Bottke, Richardson and Love paper that you cite*, but it sure would be fun to play with their computer model! I hadn't read the paper before; I'd encourage PF members and guests to take a look for themselves. Your comment suggests that you have a copy of this model. The following comment, from your website ("Questioning the accepted theory"), talking about SL9, suggests that you may have made several runs with the Bottke, Richardson and Love model, but have been unable to reproduce break-ups that could have caused the catinas you present. Have you? If so, why don't you publish the results of those runs?
"Crater chains of the type we are investigating and questioning are not varied in size, are not thousands of kilometers apart and did not impact over days. The very complexity of uniform size, trajectory, alignment, and timing isn't coming from a comet that broke up."

*http://www.astro.umd.edu/~dcr/Research/bottke_icarus126%2C470.pdf

[Edit: removed link to craterchains' email]

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your game Phobos

 

[russ_watters]

Its not up us to prove a negative, craterchains - such a thing can't be done anyway. Its up to you to prove the positive assertion that these crater chains were created by intelligence. If you have actual evidence of that - positive evidence, not just a failed model of a natural cause, post it. I won't be visiting your site to inflate your hit count.

Unreasonable? Tough. The burdern of proof is on you and I won't be doing your work for you.

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your games Phobos

 

[Nereid]

craterchains wrote: The computer model works from his page, *SNIP

Could you please provide a link? I'd like to take a look for myself ...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by craterchains
Even though they have seen the evidence, admitted the failed simulation, and just plain don’t want to address the points we have made thus far but instead try to belittle ones efforts...

craterchains, you haven't provided any evidence, only unsubstantiated assertions. You can't just say 'look at the picture, its obviously intelligence,' you have to prove it. Thats the way science works. I must warn you however, that its a two part proof. Not only do you have to prove that these formations could not have happened naturally, but you also need to prove is that there is/was an intelligence there to make them. It almost seems like you are using the assumption that these craterchains are artificial as evidence for the intelligence. Thats a circular arguement.

Again, please feel free to post here any evidence you have.

The failure to be able to recognize a nonrandom pattern for what it represents

Craterchains, there is nothing about a nonrandom patter that implies intelligence. Indeed, virtually everything we know about the laws of the universe comes from recognition of nonrandom patterns.

Astronomers recorded the systematic destruction of life on Mars over a span of many decades. The vast amount of evidence is easily seen by any that view their reports and the photos they took. Only in retrospect can we comprehend what those astronomers saw and recorded. Read, look, and decide for yourselves. From the late 1800s till about 1950 Mars was destroyed. Think about it. Just more evidence for you to belittle. It is not our evidence, but that of astronomers we offer.

Huh? You'r not talking about Lowell's http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html , are you? If so - whoa. Lowell was considered a crackpot by his contemporaries, and to continue to believe it after we've landed spacecraft there ---- whoa.

Craterchains, if this is what you are going for, I'm an engineer, not a doctor - the help you need, I can't give you.

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your game Phobos

 

[Nereid]

craterchains wrote: Astronomers recorded the systematic destruction of life on Mars over a span of many decades. The vast amount of evidence is easily seen by any that view their reports and the photos they took. Only in retrospect can we comprehend what those astronomers saw and recorded. Read, look, and decide for yourselves. From the late 1800s till about 1950 Mars was destroyed. Think about it. Just more evidence for you to belittle. It is not our evidence, but that of astronomers we offer.

Using this map of Mars, please name three to five locations where there is particularly compelling evidence that Mars was destroyed, from the 1800s to ~1950.
http://www.the-planet-mars.com/map-mars.html

We will then go look at some of the detailed images from the many Mars missions to examine the destruction more closely. Perhaps you could also tell us what we will see on the detailed images? Unlike on the Earth - where 50 to 200 years might be long enough for weathering and vegetation to make seeing global destruction hard to see from the air - the evidence on Mars will be quite fresh.

craterchains wrote: *SNIP then as an engineer what would it take to guide a series of fifty nuclear missiles to deliver a perfect strike pattern that we see as a crater chain?

It's not clear to me whether you're claiming any of the crater chains on Mars are the result of nuclear explosions or not. However, it seems you are claiming that they're no more than ~200 years old. What level of radioactivity do you expect to find at these sites? How widely dispersed would the fallout have been?

 

[Nereid]

craterchains wrote:Sorry about the simulation situation but we have discovered the following.
William Bottke's Cornell University web page has been taken down but his co-researcher Derek Charles Richardson's web page http://www.astro.umd.edu/~dcr/ has under his research the mpg files of simulations. (GS)

Thanks for this, Derek Richardson has done some very interesting work.

For other readers, his work is largely in the field of simulation of large numbers of particles, under the influence of gravity, undergoing elastic and inelastic collisions (including fragmentation), incorporating quite a number of physical parameters and properties of the particles. He has used this to simulate the rings of Saturn (or any planetary rings), the formation history of the early solar system (planetismals aggregating to form planets), 'rubble pile' asteroids ('Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon' style responses to an asteroid on collision course with the Earth would make a bad situation much worse, truly), and tidal disruption (SL9 and the like).

Some of the courses he teaches look good! (you can even take some online??)

craterchains, seeing as how Derek has made the source code used in his PhD thesis available online, what do you estimate the effort it would take to modify it to model rubble pile disruptions (and collisions), with the objective of compiling good statistics on the likelihood of your most compelling catinas being formed through collisions, tidal disruption, and rubble piles?

 

[shrumeo]

Aaarrrrgh, Charlie Brown!

This discussion reminds me of all the Creation "Science" and Intellegent Design garbage that evangelists and bible bangers spew.

I'm not even a physicist (just a lowly chemist) and I just don't understand why anyone calling themselves a scientist would jump to some conclusion about some mysterious intellegent force just because they haven't been able to successfully model a physical phenomenon. I was just browsing this thread and I can't believe it.

These people have no data whatsoever to support any kind ET hypothesis. It sounds like they just want to convince people of outrageous claims based on some oversimplified "thought" experiments and say "Now doesn't it sound logical that the only way this could have happened was that some intellegent being decided it was a good idea to have a string of craters on one of these moons over here?"

 

[craterchains]

Not playing your game Phobos

 

[Phobos]

Sending this hypothesis to the skepticism & debunking forum. Watch for the linearized crater trail upon impact.

 

[Phobos]

Please excuse my joking remark, but c'mon. When you hypothesize that crater chains are caused by extraterrestrial intelligence, S&D is the proper forum for that discussion. Ask any mentor here at PF. If you disagree with that decision, then you send a PM to myself or Ivan asking for an explanation and request that it be moved back. If we agree, then we would move it back. No big deal. But by angrily deleting all your posts, this topic is ended.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Phobos
Watch for the linearized crater trail upon impact.

...oooOOOooo...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Craterchains, we don't play games here (unless you consider the scientific process itself to be a game) - and we don't like members playing games with us. We're pretty specific and consistent about what will fly and what won't. If your ideas are rejected (or viewed with extreme skepticism) by a large percentage of mentors, it'd be a good bet that there really is something wrong with them. I, in particular, am pretty stubborn and blunt when it comes to adhering to the scientific method and demonstrating credibility. If you follow the scientific process, you'll receive a better response - and you'll increase your chances of learning something from the experience.

 

[Nereid]

Comment from a non-PF Mentor

To a new reader this thread must seem rather odd - what is going on?

Just a quick summary:
craterchains posted a link to his (her?) website, which discusses catinas (crater chains), particularly those seen in images, from space probes, on Callisto, Phobos, Mars (and the Moon?).

They assert that the simulation work done by Bottke, Richardson, and Love cannot show that such catinas could be formed by the tidal disruption of 'rubble pile' asteroids/comets and their subsequent collision with planets and moons. Instead they believe that these catinas can only have been formed by intelligent beings engaged in a fierce war.

Their website also talks about Mars and widespread destruction recorded by astronomers between ~1800 and 1950; however, IMHO, this is a distraction.

A personal observation: Phobos (the PF Mentor of Astronomy & Cosmology) showed remarkable tolerance in allowing the thread to go for so long before moving it to where it clearly belongs.