Site Section Links
"Geology deals with a) past events, which are not reproducible; b) individual or unique objects and phenomena; c) dynamic, mostly non-linear and chaotic systems; d) complex systems observable in nature, hardly so in the laboratory.
Geology has much in common with Astronomy. The objects in the sky are fossils, too, and their light talks about past events. But Astronomy is more appealing to the layman. Maybe he has more respect or fear for the skies than for Mother Earth!" - from a paper by Franco Ricci-Lucchi
The Craters Are Electric
Suspension of disbelief is a well known mental process whereby a person engaged by a fictional story temporarily surrenders his rational logic. This intensifies a story's emotional impact, particularly when it is too implausible for the intellect to accept. For those engaged in scientific investigation, a similar mental exercise is required in order for one to interpret evidence objectively. Rather than suspend one's logical discernment, one must lay aside all assumptions and biases that might distort or limit one's field of vision. This might be called the suspension of BELIEF(s).
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said, "The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice." The most fundamental "prejudice" that has directed the space sciences for decades is the belief that space is electrically inert. Throughout the Space Age, every new discovery has been interpreted through a lens that views gravity and gravity alone as the force that shapes the heavens.
When the first space probes returned images of the Moon, they revealed a surface heavily pockmarked with craters and riddled with long-sinuous channels (or rilles). Scientists seeking to interpret these features were constrained by the traditional geologic toolkit. The "debate" over the lunar craters only included two possible causative agents: volcanism, or impact. Eventually, a consensus was reached that meteoric impacts were the primary source of lunar craters.
But more than forty years ago, the British journal Spaceflight published the laboratory experiments of Brian J. Ford, an amateur astronomer who raised the possibility that most of the craters on the moon were carved by cosmic electrical discharge. (Spaceflight 7, January, 1965).
In the cited experiments Ford used a spark-machining apparatus to reproduce in miniature some of the most puzzling lunar features, including craters with central peaks, small craters preferentially perched on the high rims of larger craters, and craters strung out in long chains. He also observed that the ratio of large to small craters on the Moon matched the ratio seen in electrical arcing.
Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), no one in the scientific mainstream followed up on Ford's investigation. To consider an electric source to the lunar craters, scientists would have to entertain electrical discharge events more energetic than anything they could envision. The notion of planetary instability and violent electric arcing between planets and moons is totally incompatible with most everything astronomers believe about space physics and celestial mechanics.
Ironically, even as astronomers codified the electrically neutral solar system, the leading pioneers of plasma science were observing stupendous electric forces in space, and documenting the analogs in laboratory discharge phenomena. The father of plasma science, Hannes Alfven, when receiving the Noble prize in physics in 1970, admonished astronomers and cosmologists for ignoring the role of electric currents in the evolution of cosmic bodies.
But when considering planetary history, astronomers are handicapped in two ways: 1) For reasons that are perfectly understandable, they assume that the present serenity and predictable movements of planets and moons can be projected backwards indefinitely. 2) Since they have no training in electrodynamics and plasma discharge, their concepts of electricity in space are limited to elementary electrostatics, a condition that has fostered great confusion in the space sciences. They cannot imagine how the "vacuum" of space could give rise to the high-energy events investigated by plasma scientists.
For today's electrical theorists, no small adjustment to perception will suffice. A sweeping revision is necessary, one that recognizes the predictable effect when a charged planet or moon moves through an electrified plasma. Where field strength is high, the result will be global electric discharge as cosmic "thunderbolts" rake across the surface, creating entirely new topography.
Allow this possibility, and the exploration of solar system history is radically altered.
Suddenly, plasma discharge and electrical arcing experiments (which have been entirely excluded from planetary science) will be permitted to shed their light on thousands of features left unexplained by traditional theory.
On every solid body in space, we have observed craters lacking any conventional explanation. In fact, on close observation, many craters show distinct features that are never true of volcanic or impact craters, but are demonstrable effects of electric discharge machining (EDM).
Craters in the laboratory
The craters in the photo above were made in a laboratory by electric discharge. This cratered surface duplicates many characteristics of planetary geology. The craters tend to clump according to size, and to fall in lines and arcs. Notice also that the ground appears burnt or discolored where the discharge was strongest and the craters the densest-not unlike the surface of Mars and other rocky bodies in the solar system. The centers of some of the craters have bumps, as do many enigmatic craters on the Moon, Mars, and other surfaces. Also of interest are the dark streaks from two larger craters close to the center of the picture, a pattern similar to the "wind"-streaked craters found on Mars.
The similarity between craters on cosmic bodies and craters in the lab does not prove that the craters seen in space were created by electric arcs. But it is a very good reason to not exclude that possibility. In other words, it is only reasonable to examine cratering patterns more carefully.
Craters With "Twin Peaks"
The image above— provided by Michael Gmirkin and NASA's World Wind 3D software— shows two dominating Martian craters that share "inconceivable" similarities. These supposed "impact" craters are placed side by side, both with central peaks terminating in CRATERS.
Although the 3D visualization exaggerates depth, the impact hypothesis faces apparently insurmountable difficulties. No formative process envisioned by planetary science ever anticipated central peaks of craters terminating in a second crater, as seen above. The craters are found in a region of Mars that planetary scientists believe to be dominated by "impacts." But the impact theory seems totally unable to account for the forms seen here.
Scientists have been able to produce clumpy "rebound" elevations in explosion craters. They also have a theoretical "analogy" in the rebound effect that occurs in thick fluids into which an object is dropped. But they have no reasonable analog for the steep peaks witnessed above, and the idea of two secondary impacts striking these peaks head-on is simply beyond belief. It should be obvious, therefore, that the presence of two craters exhibiting the same anomaly, and standing side-by-side, categorically excludes the impact hypothesis.
Electrical discharge experiments easily produce craters with central peaks. So it is not a stretch to envision a discharge event excavating the kind of craters seen above, including the pinnacles in their centers. More specifically, electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill envisions twin Birkeland filaments rotating "like a corkscrew around a center" to create these "dished" peaks in the same process that formed the crater. He likens the symmetrically shaped "bowl" at the top of the peaks to the levees created by electrical arcs when they move across the surface to carve out channels or rilles.
If an electrical interpretation is required to account for these surface features, then that interpretation would anticipate the possibility of many similar features in the region. In fact, looking closely at the picture above, a smaller third crater (lower right) reveals yet another peak and a third crater atop this peak. (See close-up image here, http:// www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/061221thirdcrateredpeak.jpg) Other craters in the region, but out of frame, also display similar morphology.
It should be obvious that the presence of two craters exhibiting the same anomaly and standing side-by-side is rationally precluded under conventional assumptions. Additional examples in the region could only add an exclamation point to the failure of standard theory.
The two craters in the above image show all of the features one expects of depressions cut by electric discharge: typical flat floors, steep sides, pinched up rims, and terraces around their walls. But instead of central peaks, they have central CRATERS. Two more craters that are similar lie to the southwest.
Thunderbolts colleague Michael Gmirkin, in pointing out these craters, has labeled them "bull's eye craters," in reference to the middle concentric circles of a dart board, emphasizing the difficulty of hitting the precise center consistently.
Under the impact interpretation, central craters could only be caused by a second impact that coincidentally struck exactly in the center of the previous impact. The impactors that created the craters would have to hit a perfect “bull’s eye” to create this effect. It might happen once. Twice in close proximity is extremely unlikely. But four times in the same neighborhood stretches the meaning of “coincidental” beyond the covers of the dictionary!!
If the arcs that machined the large craters persisted until they pinched down into a very small diameter, or if a second return stroke followed the ionized path left by the first and persisted long enough, the central peaks (if they were not already machined away) would have been “drilled down,” perhaps even to a depth below the original craters’ floors. Such an event would not be the norm, but several “bull’s-eye craters” in a particular area would not be surprising. It may be significant that the four examples noted here lie on the plain just south of Valles Marineris—seen by the electric theorists as the largest EDM channel (from a traveling arc) in the Solar system.
Rampart craters and pedestal craters on Mars are virtually impossible to explain with the impact model. Pedestal craters, including their bottoms, stand ABOVE the elevation of the surrounding terrain. Rampart craters, like the one shown in the above THEMIS image, are surrounded by a "moat" (red arrow) that's deeper than the original ground level and an outer "rampart" (blue arrow) that's higher than both the moat and the surrounding terrain. The outer rampart seems to have "flowed" away from the crater, rather than to have been ejected.
From an Electric Universe point of view, these craters are enormous "fulgamites," raised blisters like those found on the metal caps of lightning arrestors after a lightning strike. Because the whole blister is lifted above the surface by the lightning arc, the crater at the top is not necessarily deeper than the elevation of the original surface around it. The material forming the raised fulgamite is scavenged from the surroundings, leaving a "moat" below the surface level.
The radial flow features have been produced in the laboratory when an arc strikes a moist clay surface. The arc appears to draw water to the surface and then to drive it away from the crater, generating a distinctive flow pattern. Thus, the rampart craters, combined with laboratory experiments, add to the evidence that Mars had water in the past.
The top images above show large craters on Mars that contain mysterious spherical domes. The bottom images show spheres and craters in Dr. C. J. Ransom's electrical discharge experiments.
Dr. Ransom was compelled to explore a possible electric explanation to the Martian "blueberres"—tiny, bb-like spherules embedded by the trillions in the Martian surface. He obtained a quantity of hematite—an iron-rich material that is the primary constituent of the soil surrounding the blueberries—and blasted it with an electric arc. The embedded spheres created by the arc appear to replicate many of the features of the blueberries on Mars.
Dr. Ransom's experiments have profound ramifications for our understanding of Mars. In simple appearance, the embedded spheres created by Ransom also look surprisingly similar to the enormous Martian craters and "domes" in the top pictures above. This is significant because of the well-known SCALABILITY of electric discharge—what occurs on a small scale also occurs on larger scales. In contrast to the rover "blueberry" images, the "domed craters" range in size from kilometers in diameter down to a hundred meters or less.
At the present time, Ransom’s electrical discharge experiments have provided the only fact-based explanation for these anomalous formations. It is only reasonable, therefore, to ask if the “blueberries” and the domed craters were produced by the same electrical force, acting on widely different scales. [Insert picture of north pole ice cap with even larger domed craters].
Amazingly, NASA images at the north polar region of Mars have revealed even larger domed craters, as seen above. In this case, it appears that the domed diameters reach up [x miles]. It should go without saying that there is no known geologic process producing such features.
Above is an image of three aligned craters in the Noachis Terra region on Mars. In interpreting these craters, NASA follows the accepted impact theory: "[T]hree aligned meteor impact craters on the floor of a much larger crater in the Noachis Terra region. The craters may have formed together from a single event in which the impactor (the meteor) was broken into three pieces."
A single event is required because there is no rubble on the floors of the craters from adjacent impacts. The blast force would have had to act simultaneously to displace laterally the ejecta situated between the impacts. But the only imaginable way to get three craters in a single event is to have the impactor break into three pieces. And then the problem returns to the first observation of three ALIGNED craters: It's unlikely that a meteor breaking up under the forces of heat and shock in the atmosphere will produce pieces that travel abreast to the surface. The theory has bitten itself on the ankle and is hobbling around in a circle.
From the Electric Universe perspective, these aligned craters are better explained as electrical discharge scars. An electric arc impinging on a surface will “machine” out a circular hole, much like a router bit. The bottom will be fairly flat; the sides will be steep; the removed material will be lifted away, leaving a clean excavation.
As seen with the crater chains above, the discharge channel will tend to “jump” along the line of motion, leaving a linear series of craters. Because the debris is lifted from the surface, subsequent craters will not throw debris into previous ones.
The arc will pull charges from the surrounding ground, forming smaller channels that travel horizontally over or under the surface. These will leave gullies, or “rilles”, directed more or less radially toward the crater. As these secondary currents reach the main arc, they will rise to join it, leaving a triangular area beneath them where the excavation forces are reduced. This will produce the characteristic “pinched up” rims, steep on both inside and outside, with more or less evenly spaced gullies traveling up them. After the arc quenches, of course, gravity will cause any loose material that exceeds the “angle of repose” to slide down.
[Describe crater chains, scoops, and gouges in connection with major Martian anomalies.)
Crater Chains and Fractures
The networks of channel or rilles discovered on planetary surfaces constitute one of the great mysteries in planetary science. But they are also a crucial test of the electrical model because the model identifies the force creating most rilles as the same force that caused the dominant cratering patterns.
Look at the above image of Jupiter's moon Ganymede. Try to imagine an impacting body breaking up to form a neatly graded and spaced line of objects that might create this series of overlapping craters. Common sense tells us that the chance of this happening is virtually zero.
But crater chains are an observed effect of electric arcs passing over a cathode (negatively charged) surface. With slight variations in the current or in surface composition, the arc may stop jumping from one crater to the next and cut a trench instead. The first image below shows a series of craters formed by an electric arc onto the dust collector of a simple ionic wind air purifier. The second image shows a series of overlapping craters produced by Zane Parker on the dust covered CRT screen.
In other words, within the electric model, there is a full range of connections that must be explored between channels and craters. And yet mainstream science, while spending billions of dollars on taxpayer dollars on space exploration, appears to have spent not a penny on exploring the power of electricity to create a wide range of enigmatic features observed in space.
In this example, the craters overlap so closely that the distinction between "crater chain" and "straight rille" blurs. There are sections of this crater chain that could pass for a rille. When examined closely, the image also includes smaller rilles with scalloped sections that could pass for overlapping craters.
Incredible pattern of "fractures" on Mars turns out to be arrangements of craters.
Notice that the sizes of the craters are similar, with an increase toward the middle. From an Electric Universe point of view, this size gradation is a reflection of the initial increase in current as an arc becomes established, followed by a decrease as the arc quenches. In lightning strikes with multiple strokes, the middle strokes are usually the strongest.
Notice also that many of the craters retain their central peaks—a common effect in craters created in the lab by electric discharge. The arc that carves a crater is a Birkeland current consisting of a pair of filaments that rotate around the current's axis. If the crater is large enough, the two filaments will not meet in the center, leaving a central spire intact.
Melting is another defining characteristic of electrical erosion. Although extensive melting is ascribed to impacts, impacts in fact produce little melting. The particles of rubble may be immersed in hot gases from the impact, but the heat dissipates too quickly for conduction to carry much of it into the particles. Electrical erosion, on the contrary, generates heat inside the eroded particles, in the manner of a heating element on an electric stove. A general expectation of the Electric Universe is that the floors of craters and rilles will show extensive glassification. Unfortunately, it can only be confirmed by on-site observations.
A final observation is that many craters appear to have their rims "pinched up," rather than "rolled over" or splattered as would be expected from debris thrown out by an impact. Many rilles, too, have "pinched up" dikes along their edges. This emphasizes the indication from missing debris that the erosional forces were directed upward.
To see the relationship between crater formation and rilles, it’s useful to observe the more extreme cases in which the standard explanation fails completely. Often, planetary scientists can only guess as to the force generating channels on Mars. Sometimes, they will “see” flowing liquid (water or lava), and other times they will “see” wind erosion, and still other times they will see cracks. In all of these cases, the visible link to craters will pose enigmas. Consider the extraordinary image above, from the region (blah blah blah) on Mars. The network of channels observed from space was certainly not caused by flowing liquid, and on the face of it, it is not surprising that planetary scientists identified the channels as cracks or “fractures.” When viewed more closely, however, the “obvious” explanation evaporates. A small section of the region above shows unequivocally the relationship between a cratering process and the enigmatic channels. To appreciate the scope of the mystery, one should view the entire THEMIS image, available here: (insert link).
Once the inseparable relationship of craters to channels is fully appreciated, only the electrical explanation remains.
Subterranean Structure Beneath Craters
In examining the credibility of the electrical cratering hypothesis, space exploration will provide increasing opportunities to test the hypothesis against standard theory. In standard theory, a crater is born from a high-velocity impact, when the colliding object penetrates deeply into the soil, then explodes. The one certainty in the impact hypothesis is that the subsurface terrain will be massively disturbed.
In the electric model, however, subsurface material may be pulled upward toward the center of the crater to create a central bump or peak. That is the only disturbance that would be expected. Therefore, it was of great interest to the electrical theorists when Australian researcher Dave Smith noted an image returned to Earth from the Cassini probe of Saturn and its moons. A close-up of Saturn’s moon Dione showed a surface exhibiting numerous craters, but also a sharply cut trench bissecting at least two craters. When Cassini captured the bissected craters from an angle, the subsurface layers were clearly exposed. It could be seen that no disturbances of the sort required by the impact hypothesis occurred in the event that gave birth to the crater.
Visible in the image is a layer of light material, and beneath that material, a layer of dark material. No disturbance can be seen in the boundaries between the two layers, though such disturbance would have been massive if in fact an impactor had created the depression.
Because the arc lifts material from the surface, the excavation is left relatively clean. Only a small portion of the detritus falls back around and in the crater or rille. The "collapsed lava tube" explanation of rilles fails on this account: The remains of the tube's roof are not inside the rille! "Missing" debris is one defining characteristic that distinguishes electrical erosion from mechanical processes: The debris is not really "missing", it¹s just not where other processes typically leave it.