Postulate: Round Craters are Not From Asteroids

More
20 years 11 months ago #7555 by Paradox
Replied by Paradox on topic Reply from
ok folks, quit calling eachother names and making fun of eachother

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #8014 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Paradox,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>ok folks, quit calling eachother names and making fun of eachother</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I would hope that Meta knows my post was in jest. Nobody is angry here (at least speaking for myself.)

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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #7823 by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Paradox,

Just for you, I will reword my question to you alone. Can you produce one extreme and unequivocal picture that shows an oblique, glancing meteor strike near the poles of any planet or moon, that can be proven to be at the general pole latitude/longitude and which comes from the, even liberally, general direction of the plane of the equator, which is the direction of the Mars strikes that the Exploded Planet theory is built upon? Lets assume that the Exploded Planet hit other moons and planets besides Mars.

Take as many years as you wish for it will take that long and if you find one before that time you are not taking the required time to do a meticulous analysis. Thats the reason I also quote source data that is 50 yrs old.

Meta

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #7595 by tvanflandern
<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 />general direction of the plane of the equator, which is the direction of the Mars strikes that the Exploded Planet theory is built upon?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Where did you get that from? I'm a proponent of the EPH, and I've never seen such a claim.

Specifically, in my version of events, the parent planet around which Mars orbited exploded, blasting the facing side of Mars with debris and craters while sparing the farside. <i>That</i> debris would have been deposited symmetrically with respect to the Martian equator then in effect. However, the next thing that happens when a planet receives deposits containing a significant fraction of the planet's mass is that the extra debris tips the planet over until the spin axis once again is the axis with the greatest moment of inertia (the greatest resistance to angular acceleration). That tip can be as much as 90 degrees if the accreted mass is great enough.

Remarkably, this predicted scenario happens to coincide with observed-but-unexpected characteristics of Mars. One hemisphere is saturated with large craters, while the opposite hemisphere is the smoothest and flattest in the solar system. And Mars shows evidence for a previous pair of pole locations quite distant from the present pair. It also shows about a dozen other indicators of this explosion scenario, including the presence of an anomalously high Xe-129/Xe-132 ratio, which cannot arise through known processes other than extremely violent explosions.

Finally, the crust of Mars on the smooth hemisphere is everywhere about 1 km thick, whereas on the cratered hemnisphere it varies from over 20 km thick smoothly down to 3-5 km thick, then drops precipitously to 1 km just past the hemispheric dichotomy boundary. It is near that boundary (not near the present equator) that we would expect to see evidence of grazing impacts. And indeed, all along that boundary is where we find the lobate (sic) scarps, which are indicators of very-low-angle impacts that burrowed in and raised the rounded (lobate) steep hills or cliffs (scarps) seen there, many of them at the ends of trenches.

So the evidence you ask for exists in spades. I recommend a reading of "The exploded planet hypothesis -- 2000" on our web site for a more detailed overview of the breadth and depth of this evidence. See metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #7717 by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Tom,

&lt;&lt; general direction of the plane of the equator, which is the direction of the Mars strikes that the Exploded Planet theory is built upon? &gt;&gt;

Im assuming that any claimed planet such as Mars, orbited in the ecliptic of the parent planet just as orbiting planets are on the ecliptic equator of the parent Sun. That is where orbiting bodies tend to settle into isnt it?

Again, you assume that I have not read the EPH material when I already have, and much more.
EPH assigns an erroneous cause to the effects seen on Mars. EPH also does not offer an explaination of similar effects on all other moons and planets. EPH must invent two other planets to substantiate the hypothesis of an explosion. Why did EPH select only two planets when, in the middle of the 19th century there were dozens of astronomers and astrophysicists declaring that they were detecting dozens of other Trans-Neptunian bodies that were purturbing the orbits of Neptune and Pluto? EPH also cannot describe the cause or mechanism of a planet that explodes either. Although Meta Notes article sites a mechanism for Mercury exploding sometime in the future because it will get too close to the Sun and it will be hurled out of the solar system, which I believe is valid, there are no other offers as to why a planet, in the middle of its evolution, would suddenly explode, when there are synchronizing, resynchronizing and clocking frequencies injected into all of the universe every 12,920 yrs, or 1/2 precessional cycle. These corrective frequencies are for one purpose and one purpose only...to KEEP the universe functioning properly, not causing planets to explode.

EPH has no evidence whatsoever that a planet exploded.
And EPH does not know of the correct mechanism that caused the effects on Mars nor the other planets and moons. Ive already presented the mechanisms in other posts but it has been so poorly received that it is fruitless to go on about it here other than create a paper elsewhere.

And for god sake, why is Uranus always portrayed as being hit and tipped on its axis when it is still as round as a ball? Do you realize that it is tipped because Uranus is dia.magnetic which aligns its axis 90 degrees (actual 89 degrees) to the Suns magnetic field? Do you know what planets will look like after hitting or being hit with a million tons of hard rock zipping thru the solar system at 66,000 mph? There will be nothing left of them or you would see a half a planet at best.....where is half a planet as evidence?????

Way too many holes, Tom.

And, no, I will never buy any books so you can forget to remind me again and again.

Meta

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
20 years 10 months ago #7959 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Meta,

These corrective frequencies are for one purpose and one purpose only...to KEEP the universe functioning properly, not causing planets to explode.[UnQuote]

You may not have meant it in the vein it appears to invoke but I take exception to the term "Purpose" here. It certainly sounds "Creationist".

Also is not Uranus mostly gas? Would that not account for not seeing a impact scar. Look at Jupiter after the Shumaker-Levi incident.



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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.226 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum