Holes in the ground

From Wikipedia we read that ‘Crater’ may refer to:

In landforms:

  • Impact crater, caused by two celestial bodies impacting each other, such as a meteorite hitting a planet
  • Volcanic crater or caldera, formed by volcanic activity
  • Subsidence crater, from an underground (usually nuclear) explosion
  • A maar crater, a relief crater caused by a phreatic eruption or explosion
  • pit crater, a crater that forms through sinking of the surface and not as a vent for lava
  • Crater lake
  • Explosion crater, a hole formed in the ground produced by an explosion near or below the surface.

Here we see a small Crater field on Mars. The largest of the small craters you see here is about 500 meters across. The consensus is that they are all impact craters. The problems we have here is in the uniform condition of the craters, and their sizes, and distribution.

If, as is assumed, impact events do indeed happen at a steady rate, and these impacts all happened one at a time, over a long period, then we should see some variation of condition from the earliest, to the most recent. Also, they are concentrated into fields of craters surrounded by large areas with no craters at all. If they fell one at a time, then they should be evenly distributed all over entire the surface of the planet.  They could only be in a concentrated cluster like this, in exactly the same condition, if they all fell at the same time, in a meteoroid swarm.

Mars1

Mars2

On Mars, it is assumed without question that we are looking at impact craters. But here on Earth, if we see the same fractal distribution of craters, the tendency is to deny that so many impact craters could happen in a terrestrial surface; much less that a large cluster of small fragments could hit all at the same time.

Our astronomers tell us that a meteoroid swarm of small fragments is a more probable event, than a large, solid bolide. Yet most geologists agree that such things cannot be…. At least, not here on Earth.

But we are orbiting around in the very same shooting gallery as Mars. And in central, and eastern, New Mexico, there are thousands of  small craters. All in the very same geologic condition. They are a bit small compared to the ones we see above. But the New Mexico craters have exactly the same fractal distribution as some of the crater fields on Mars. And except for differences in weathering that can be accounted for by different atmospheric conditions, they are in the very same geologic condition.

If those in New Mexico didn’t form by impact there is no reason to assume those in the images from Mars did either.

Until we’ve been there on the ground.

Published in: Uncategorized on July 30, 2011 at 9:37 am  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://craterhunter.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/holes-in-the-ground/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. A very cogent, original, fact-based, and convincing argument…

  2. If they fell one at a time, then they should be evenly distributed all over entire the surface of the planet.

    Randomness doesn’t work that way, Dennis. Over a large enough sampling of crater fields, yes. But not within one crater field. Randomness pretty much dictates some grouping. It is a fallacy that randomness means evenly distributed.

    • Not true.

      In the images above of Mars, we see a single craterfield of small < 1km craters. and with no craters surrounding it. If we want to say they all happened one at a time, over a long period of time, then we have to explain how they hit the same small area. And missed the surrounding area. Mars is a geologically active body. We'll also need to explain how a field of small craters with very different ages can all be in exactly the same conditon

      I would be interested though in reading any peer reviewed literature that can explain how a constant, and random, flux of planetary impacts can predict the clustered grouping of small craters we see in the images we see above of Mars, or New Mexico. And all the while leaving surrounding areas untouched

  3. Our astronomers tell us that a meteoroid swarm of small fragments is a more probable event, than a large, solid bolide. Yet most geologists agree that such things cannot be…. At least, not here on Earth.

    But we are orbiting around in the very same shooting gallery as Mars.

    Absolutely. There is nothing magical about the Earth, no wizard’s protective shield, that makes Earth more unlikely to have been hit by meteors (or comets). Appeals to “atmospheric burn up” can only go so far. After all, Jupiter’s atmosphere didn’t stop SL-9 from impacting SOMETHING in big plumes.

    The astronomers are not just wrong on this. They are spectacularly wrong. It is amazing how they have to be dragged kicking and screaming, over ever small step of realization. First they wouldn’t admit that rocks feel from the sky. Then it took 100 years for Shoemaker (after decades of work) to show them that the craters on Earth actually were impacts. Then they concluded, more or less, that there was only one kind of impact – meteors. Because that was all that Shoemaker had studied.

    Your fields seem to be legitimate meteor craters (but perhaps not). Even so, it may be another 100 years before they accept them as impacts. (But if they look like a duck…) They certainly are not volcanoes. They will deny till the cows come home, but in the end, they have no choice.

    Anything even remotely to do with catastrophes, they just won’t allow into their uniformitarian POV. Isn’t it wonderful to live in a time like Galileo’s?

    • It’s not the astronomers who’re stuck in the past. They’ve been saying we should be finding far more impact structures for some time now.

      “The disintegration of this massive Taurid Complex progenitor over some tens of thousands of years would yield meteoroid swarms which could easily lead to brief, catastrophic episodes of multiple bombardment by sub-kilometer bolides, and it is tempting to see the event at ~12,900 BP as an instance of this. Whether it actually happened is a matter for Earth scientists, but from the astronomical point of view a meteoroid swarm is a much more probable event than a 4 km comet collision.”
      ~Bill Napier

      The problem is with the legacy of unquestioned, 19th century, Uniformitarian conditioning in the Earth sciences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: