The explanation for hexagonal craters on the Moon & elsewhere

Never bought the whole electrical discharge thing. I took many electronics classes in high school and learned about what it takes to create circuits and stuff. Lightning bolts between celestial bodies just don't make no sense to me. Too much distance. Too much insulation and too many non-conducting materials. Also, if this was as common as presumed, we'd see it all the time in the nice, dark night sky. Yet... nothing.

Most of the "evidence" of this kind of thing can be explained by other much more simple mechanisms like heat created by friction or something as simple as a meteorite coming in slow at an angle and bouncing.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

obviously hexagon meteoroids


jk lol


its more than likely just chance

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Never bought the whole electrical discharge thing. I took many electronics classes in high school and learned about what it takes to create circuits and stuff. Lightning bolts between celestial bodies just don't make no sense to me. Too much distance. Too much insulation and too many non-conducting materials. Also, if this was as common as presumed, we'd see it all the time in the nice, dark night sky. Yet... nothing.

Correct, there would need to be some mechanism for that and we would probably know about it by now and haven't seen it.

Most of the "evidence" of this kind of thing can be explained by other much more simple mechanisms like heat created by friction or something as simple as a meteorite coming in slow at an angle and bouncing.

I don't think there's bouncing going on. If you're talking about the crater chains, we have a pretty good idea what cases that, and it's not bouncing. Many smaller objects in our solar system are "rubble piles", loosely bound aggregations of rocks that could be separated by passing close to a body with enough gravity to pull apart the rubble pile. We even saw a comet pulled apart by a gravitational interaction, into 21 fragments, before they slammed into Jupiter, so I think long chains of impacts can be formed by long chains of disrupted rubble piles:

Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9

Calculations showed that its unusual fragmented form was due to a previous closer approach to Jupiter in July 1992. At that time, the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull apart the comet. The comet was later observed as a series of fragments ranging up to 2 km (1.2 mi) in diameter.

This explains why there's unlikely to be any bouncing impactors on the moon; basically the objects are typically going too fast for bouncing when they impact.
www.researchgate.net...

At an impact site, the energy and momentum of the impactor are locally and rapidly transmitted into the impacted target body.

That goes on to describe ejecta, that's not really a bounce of the original impactor.

Earth is a different story, where a smaller rock hitting the ground might bounce a bit because Earth's atmosphere causes it to slow and fall at some terminal velocity which isn't very fast, but I still wouldn't expect any crater chain from that. Large impactors are going to transfer their momentum to the Earth at the impact site, like at meteor crater, like happens on the moon.

Speaking of Meteor Crater, it is more squarish than hexagonal, I don't know how I missed the squarish shape when I saw it before.

At the time of discovery, the surrounding plains were covered with about 30 tons of large oxidized iron meteorite fragments. This led Barringer to believe that the bulk of the impactor could still be found under the crater floor. Impact physics was poorly understood at the time and Barringer was unaware that most of the meteorite vaporized on impact. He spent 27 years trying to locate a large deposit of meteoric iron, and drilled to a depth of 1,375 ft (419 m) but no significant deposit was ever found.

So an impactor that vaporizes on impact doesn't bounce. But there was plenty of ejecta, small iron fragments surrounding the crater area.

If the impact occurs at a low angle, say less than 12 degrees, the crater formed might be elliptical, but I still wouldn't expect any bounce, maybe lots of ejecta.
Low-angle Collision With Earth: The Elliptical Impact Crater Matt Wilson, Northern Territory, Australia

Nearly all meteorite impact craters on Earth are circular. Elongated crater structures are expected only at impacts at angles lower than 12 degrees from the horizontal. Kenkmann and Poelchau document the first elliptical crater on Earth that provides insights into the mechanisms of crater formation at low angles.

And what makes magnetic fields? My glory this is repetitive. I’m quite familiar with the scientifically accepted formula behind the suns processes. It’s just that they are false.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your bouncing bundle of thousand year old light still doesn’t explain why the inside of the sun is a. Dark b. Cooler then the surface.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Your absolutely correct, I should have written up a brief summary of the video. Thanks for taking the time to embed and complete where I fell short. Your a champ.
However, the three century old theory of gravity is still a theory. There is a video (again on YouTube) detailing an electrical theory of how the force of gravity comes about. It is however a bloke who is educated in another field basically giving a commentary on someone else’s work.
I thought He’d drift this thread a little to far.
Anywho, thanks for the chitchat about dogma and doctrine. See ya round.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Never bought the whole electrical discharge thing. I took many electronics classes in high school and learned about what it takes to create circuits and stuff. Lightning bolts between celestial bodies just don't make no sense to me. Too much distance. Too much insulation and too many non-conducting materials. Also, if this was as common as presumed, we'd see it all the time in the nice, dark night sky. Yet... nothing.

You do realise the universe is afloat in a sea of plasma don’t you?

Plasma, in physics, an electrically conducting medium in which there are roughly equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles, produced when the atoms in a gas become ionized. It is sometimes referred to as the fourth state of matter, distinct from the solid, liquid, and gaseous states.

In the tiny place we know of as the universe (it’s not tiny at all) this stuff is everywhere.

That’s positive and negative charged particles all the way to as far as can be detected.

Magnetic fields are ‘seen’ by telescopes these days.

Find me a magnetic field without an electric charge.

Consider the orders of magnitude difference between gravity and electricity. That’s 39 orders of magnitude.


The fundamental difference between gravity and electricity is manifested in the everyday presence of all kinds of electromagnetic waves and in the total absence of gravitational waves.

Gravitational interaction is apparently instantaneous, as reluctantly assumed by Newton and latter suggested by many researchers from Laplace to Eddington and Van Flandern.
Indeed, from the astronomical evidence within the solar system, Laplace concluded that the speed of propagation of gravity has to be at least 108c.
This limit has been pushed to 1010c in the last years by Van Flandern, thus strongly suggesting instantaneous propagation of gravity.
To quote Van Flandern: "Anyone with a computer and an orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interaction.
The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is distroyed.
Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur (Eddington), this means: ´If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its previous position S´, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J´, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple.
This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system.
And, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.

But you know settled science and all.

Most of the "evidence" of this kind of thing can be explained by other much more simple mechanisms like heat created by friction or something as simple as a meteorite coming in slow at an angle and bouncing.

Just be wary of those who say a Jupiter sized planet
(Fairly large) and a moon sized object (quite small) can pull floating clumps of debris apart with the same gay abandon.
Or in fact clumps of debris go hurtling through our solar system in orbits.

originally posted by: Dalamax
To quote Van Flandern: "Anyone with a computer and an orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interaction.
The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is distroyed.
Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur (Eddington), this means: ´If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its previous position S´, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J´, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple.
This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system.
And, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.

But you know settled science and all.

I don't know if you're an evil person who is intentionally misrepresenting the truth by taking a quote that far out of context, or if you're an ignorant victim who is parroting some distorted out of context quotation that some con-man has presented to you. What Sir Arthur Eddington was saying relates to your last comment which I presume given the context is sarcastic, when you say:

"But you know settled science and all."

What Sir Arthur Eddington was actually saying that you so horribly misrepresented by taking his words out of context, is that not only is the science not settled, but it's subject to revision based on better evidence, and what he was explaining in the words you cited is what scientists used to think before we obtained better evidence (he was one of the people who helped collect the better evidence) in support of a better theory. So basically what he was explaining in those words, is that's what we used to think but now based on better evidence we have a newer and better theory.

Here's why the quote you posted is so unbelievably out of context that it's EVIL! If you don't take it out of context and post the rest of that quote, he explains "That argument is fallacious".

Here are his actual words, and note where he says the words you quoted, and then follows that with the statement "The argument is fallacious". If you quote the words preceding "the argument is fallacious" as if the argument is not fallacious, which is what you did, that's EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!

Space, Time and Gravitation, by Sir Arthur Eddington, page 86


So, are you trying to be evil by knowingly misrepresenting what Eddington said by by citing his words as if he is saying they are true, when he is actually saying the exact opposite, that they are not true but you leave that part out of your citation? Or are you just too lazy to do any research to see the arguments the conmen from EU are feeding you are bovine excrement?

originally posted by: Dalamax
You do realise the universe is afloat in a sea of plasma don’t you?

Potential doesn't create currents.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It's also an inaccurate statement, the Universe isn't floating in plasma it isn't floating in anything. But there is plasma floating in the Universe. Though falling might be a more accurate term.

Why do people think there is something magical about plasma anyway?

Quite correct. For clarity, every object in the observable universe is immersed in plasma.

Nothing magical about plasma, there is no voodoo there.

a reply to: Phage

Your correct blue shift a circuit is required. Current generates a magnetic field ( and magnetic fields induce current) and magnetic fields are everywhere.
It seems like evidence to me, even without knowing the details of the processes.

A reply to Blueshift.

Oh I am evil. Details is devilry.
He also talks about interval being the same for all observers 🤥 and picks an arbitrary velocity, assigns it to light and uses it as a clock to explain a fourth dimension. Not very sciencey dude old Eddy.

But gravity is an instantaneous phenomenon or it’s an effect and not a cause.


A reply to Arbitrageur

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are hundreds of years of research and experiments documented on the internet, so our scientific knowledge is collective, it's not just my knowledge.

Not saying I disagree with your posts generally, though I personally believe there is something in the electric universe theory, at least partly - but I have to take issue with how you claim that scientific research is available for free on the internet & that therefore it's some sort of collective knowledge pool.

That simply isn't true - the vast majority of interesting articles I want to dive into are protected within the hallowed halls of academia or behind a paywall so obnoxious that it just screams class warfare. The most interesting science is walled off, make no mistake, and claiming that we all have level playing field access is simply untrue.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Newton figured out that concept 334 years ago, so you are not even up to where science was 334 years ago.

Newton spent most of his time studying the Bible in point of fact, and he did so with a level of deep perception which is simply remarkable to behold, his interpretations of complex apocalypse & prophetic literature within the scripturea are a wonder to behold.

Funny how no-one ever mentions that. He considered his scientific works secondary to the outworking & analysis of his faith, and I think that we all should be cogniscent of that fact when we blithely quote him as a trusty steed on the side of scientific research - he truly believed that there was no contradiction between his faith & his scientific research. We all could learn a lot more from him than we generally give him credit for.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I get your point, and it's incredibly frustrating, but this is down to the commercial operations of publishers, not the scientists or academia. There are still libraries and other places where you can get the information you need.

As I was saying about space and time.

Here is an interesting presentation on c and h

In this presentation some of the flaws and ahem, evils, of your postulating are exposed as uncertainty by the very minds you quote.

Just a little FYI stone at your house of glass.

Holy snapping duck snip it worked!

Things aren’t always what they seem.



A reply to Arbitrageur

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are hundreds of years of research and experiments documented on the internet, so our scientific knowledge is collective, it's not just my knowledge.

Not saying I disagree with your posts generally, though I personally believe there is something in the electric universe theory, at least partly - but I have to take issue with how you claim that scientific research is available for free on the internet & that therefore it's some sort of collective knowledge pool.

As you say, the context here is electric universe type topics that Dalamax brought up, so while there are paywalls, the predecessor to arxiv began archiving pre-prints in 1991 and As of April 2018, arXiv held over 1,377,000 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance, Statistics, Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, and Economics.

That simply isn't true - the vast majority of interesting articles I want to dive into are protected within the hallowed halls of academia or behind a paywall so obnoxious that it just screams class warfare. The most interesting science is walled off, make no mistake, and claiming that we all have level playing field access is simply untrue.

I think arxiv has been a leader in the open access pre-print field, but there are other pre-print servers where you can find a lot. It's true that some other branches of science haven't made as much progress on open access as physics, but remember the context of the discussion on electric universe relates to physics. This list shows there are some other pre-print servers which cover other subjects:

List of preprint repositories

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Newton spent most of his time studying the Bible in point of fact, and he did so with a level of deep perception which is simply remarkable to behold, his interpretations of complex apocalypse & prophetic literature within the scripturea are a wonder to behold.

Funny how no-one ever mentions that. He considered his scientific works secondary to the outworking & analysis of his faith, and I think that we all should be cogniscent of that fact when we blithely quote him as a trusty steed on the side of scientific research - he truly believed that there was no contradiction between his faith & his scientific research. We all could learn a lot more from him than we generally give him credit for.

No-one ever mentions that? What about the headlines from 2003 talking about Newton's alleged prediction of the end of the world 57 years later in 2060? (The article doesn't mention the 2016 date).


You are right that Newton didn't see conflict between his Bible study and his scientific research, and as that article suggests he was trying to extract science from the Bible. I don't fault him for that, because he was a product of his time when religion and science were still very much intertwined in many people's thinking.

I don't know what you think we can learn from that though. Didn't Newton fail at extracting science from the bible? Don't most attempts to extract science from the bible fail? The article linked below affirms the historical connection between science and religion, but also discusses how it evolved into the state of things today, and I don't think there's any going back to Newton's thinking of trying to extract science from the bible, if that's what you're trying to suggest. At least not by rational people, though we do have crackpots who think the Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. But even religious leaders don't have as much confidence in the bible, for example there was an article recently about the pope talking about possible flooding from climate change (I presumed he was talking about coastal areas though it wasn't clear), but the article said the pope thinks that the biblical flood is probably a myth, so even the pope apparently doesn't think the bible is any kind of reliable scientific document.

This article talks about how science and religion used to be intertwined, and how that relationship evolved, mentioning Newton's influence:

'How the Heavens Go'

In subsequent centuries, however, scientific theories of "how the heavens go" increasingly determined the place and power of God. The "celestial mechanics" of Isaac Newton produced a god who designed a world machine and somehow sustained it in motion. Theologians readily accepted whatever proofs for God's existence the new science chose to give. The result was a diminished "god of the gaps" inhabiting whatever dark corners science had not yet brought to rational light. In this way, says Jesuit theologian Michael Buckley of Boston College, theologians themselves cooperated in the advent of modern atheism by relying on science to explain God and ignoring "the traditional sources of religious insight and experience that make belief in God intelligible." By the 18th century, astronomer Pierre Laplace could explain nature as a self-sufficient mechanism. As for God, he told Emperor Napoleon, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Nor, a century later, did Darwin in his theory of evolution.

The title of that article is based on the famous quote from Galileo (who preceded Newton), that “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”, which I think is a more enlightened concept, than Newton trying to unsuccessfully extract science from the bible.

Here's a BBC documentary from 2003, and there was a similar documentary from NOVA in 2005, showing people have talked about the "hidden" parts of Newton's life:

The Dark Heretic. Isaac Newton BBC 2003 Documentary

Newton's interest in alchemy was hidden after his death because his associates wanted to make him into a scientific hero and maybe they already knew or at least suspected that alchemy was sort of a pseudoscience, and the fact it was illegal also made it embarrassing. There was nothing wrong with being religious in Newton's time so an interest in traditional religion wasn't embarrassing, but Newton's religious views were not accepted traditional views he was raised with; he was a religious heretic, and that too was probably covered up somewhat, like his interest in alchemy.

a reply to: 2Faced
I have been studying electricity since I was little because my dad was a nuke in the Navy then came out as master electrician amongst other things. I follow the basics in math of electricity even though it is a bit Vortex or chaos math. So electrical discharge and a hexagonal shape makes a lot of sense to me for many reasons.

When you start combining electricity magnetism and water is when it gets very interesting. As at a young age I put together that cloud in the Meister in them completed the current to create lightning. Next stop is vacuum tubes testing correlation with space.