Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Klimax

1)nothing
2)What's the point?

Ahh I see the intellectual police have been called!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by ben m

I will play along with the troll for a second.

Sol88, if you hypothesize that the planet Mercury was once charged up---like a great big capacitor---and that a runaway *discharge* created an arc, and the arc was responsible for the spider-like formation in the Caloris basin ... well, let's do some MATH.

Let's hypothesize that we can charge Mercury up. Just plug in a big jumper cable, or shoot a highly-charged wind at it, or ... something. One way or another, we'll hypothesize that we can build up an electrostatic voltage on the whole planet. How much excess charge can we pack on while doing this?

As an isolated sphere, Mercury's capacitance is about 0.2 millifarads. That's, um, not very much. A *gigavolt* static potential would carry only 200,000 Coulombs (about one car battery). I want to emphasize that a gigavolt is a very, very high potential. There is no way to charge something up to a gigavolt by bathing it in a kilovolt-energy solar wind.

Let's see, how much *energy* do you store when you pack 200,000 C into a gigavolt potential? 2 x 10^14 joules ... about 50 kT of TNT, or something in the ballpark of the Nagasaki atomic bomb.

Therefore, we have (unfortunately) lots of experience with the craters formed by 50 kT energy releases. They're a 100 meters in diameter and a few meters deep---underground explosions might excavate only a hundred meter or so cavity. Moving rock around takes lots of energy.

So what do we find on Mercury? A hole 40,000 meters in diameter.

Sol88, your "arc welder" hypothesis requires energy to be stored somewhere. The largest charge we can expect Mercury to pick up from the Solar Wind is a few kilovolts, giving it a few hundred Joules of energy---whereupon your Giant Arc Discharge Into Space could perhaps occur, but it would barely heat up a cup of tea, much less excavate a 40,000 meter crater.

How much energy do you think you need for the crater, Sol88? How will you charge up an isolated capacitor to the (apparently required) ten teravolts? You can't. Since Mercury could never have been this highly charged, it's never had anything like enough stored electrostatic energy to excavate a crater with an arc discharge. You casually invented an Giant Cosmic Welding Torch, Sol88, but you forgot to find somewhere to plug it in.

You're welcome to do the same calculation under the (equally stupid) assumption that Mercury had (like Earth) a dielectric atmosphere with an internal mechanical charge conveyor. You will have to learn electrostatics to do so.

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Did you happen to read these papers? Or are you still looking for your wall socket to plug you electrical cord in?

I take you do understand what induced means in this context? Magnetic induction


INDUCED MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS AT PLANET MERCURY

Induced magnetic field within Mercury

MAGNETIC FIELD AT MERCURY: EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL
SOURCES ON PLANETARY DYNAMOS

Tesenfem wrote:

Quote:

Why on Earth would you want a transformer?
Well, in some way you can see it like that, only that the induced current (through the disturbance of the magnetic field) will flow in that disturbed magnetic field, sort of like the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetospere. In this case there is NO linking of two current circuits like in a transformer (where it is usually used to down the voltage of the one circuit to the other circuit).

But those papers Tusenfem are saying currents are being induced in the core?

What happens then?

The solar wind is very dynamic and because of Mercuries position right next door to the Sun, what happen if a killer CME blew by?

Such as the Carrington Event? and that's only going back couple hundred years! How old is Mercury? I'll wager it's seen it's fair share of large events!

Quote:

The explosion produced not only a surge of visible light but also a mammoth cloud of charged particles and detached magnetic loops—a "CME"—and hurled that cloud directly toward Earth. The next morning when the CME arrived, it crashed into Earth's magnetic field, causing the global bubble of magnetism that surrounds our planet to shake and quiver. Researchers call this a "geomagnetic storm." Rapidly moving fields induced enormous electric currents that surged through telegraph lines and disrupted communications.

What happens when one of those babies runs into a planet with an induced magnetic field? Like Mercury!

All the criteria for my hypothesis are there! Everything by what was on the other end of the discharge!

charge separation and charge equalization. it's what electricity does!

but now the mods have been called in, I see everyone here is going to let this compelling piece of evidence that the universe (or at least our soar system) is electricaly active and gravitationally stagnate!

Even the similar features we see on the moon CAN NOT be explained in any convectional manner, if you were to take the time to think for your self, you would be surprised.

It's not volcanism!

it's not impact!

It's not geological!

and all the ingredients for an electric discharge are there! after all it's next to the biggest generator of charged particles we know!

[Sol88]

It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse!

If it is an electrical discharge (which is more likely than any other standard proposal) then down come the house of cards, from just one little observation, and as shown over and over in these threads and reiterated by Zuesss, the PTB are scared (money, position and prowess), but defiantly not for the advancement of science and human knowledge.

Are you too scared to think outside the box?

Standard explination do not stack up!

Rille's

Quote:

Structures

Three types of rille are found on the lunar surface:

* Sinuous rilles meander in a curved path like a mature river, and are commonly thought to be the remains of collapsed lava tubes or extinct lava flows. They usually begin at an extinct volcano, then meander and sometimes split as they are followed across the surface. Vallis Schröteri in Oceanus Procellarum is the largest sinuous rille.

* Arcuate rilles have a smooth curve and are found on the edges of the dark lunar maria. They are believed to form when the lava flows that created a mare cool, contract, and sink. This are found all over the moon, examples can be seen near the south-western border of Mare Tranquillitatis and on the south-eastern border of Mare Humorum.

* Straight rilles follow long, linear paths and are believed to be grabens, sections of the crust that have sunk between two parallel faults. These can be readily identified when they pass through craters or mountain ranges. Vallis Alpes is by far the largest graben rille, indeed it is regarded as too large to be called a rille and is itself bisected by a straight rille; Rupes Recta in Mare Nubium is a clearer example.

Rilles which show more than one structure are termed hybrid rilles. Rima Hyginus in Sinus Medii is an example, initially formed through a fault and subsequently subject to volcanic activity.


[edit] Formation

Precise formation mechanisms of rilles have yet to be determined. It is likely that different types formed by different processes. Common features shared by lunar rilles and similar structures on other bodies suggest that common causative mechanisms operate widely in the solar system. Leading theories include lava channels, collapsed lava tubes, near-surface dike intrusion, subsidence of lava-covered basin and crater floors, and tectonic extension.

The same features on Mercury are found on Mars, Venus, luna and most of the moons of the gas giant planets!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_system

Now it's only looking at picture but ehh!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Even the similar features we see on the moon CAN NOT be explained in any convectional manner, if you were to take the time to think for your self, you would be surprised.

You seem to forget that the sipder crater and ray system on Mercury is unique. Just read what you have lnked to. If it was common then how come all of the astronomers were surprised to see it? Why is there a news release about a common, garden variety feature?

There are no similar features, i.e. crater + ray (trough) system on the Moon.


In addition: electric discharge has been ruled out as a cause of this unique feature since:

• There is no charge separation caused by the solar wind (as you assume) because Mercury has a shielding magnetic field.
• Mercury does not have an atmosphere to support terrestrial forms of lightning.
• A falsifiable, testable prediction of the idea would be that similar craters would appear elsewhere. For example there should be examples on the Moon since it is exposed to the solar wind. Since more examples are not seen, the idea is falsified.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse!

Talk about being obtuse: It is not cosmology.

Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology:
Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales.
Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You seem to forget that the sipder crater and ray system on Mercury is unique. Just read what you have lnked to. If it was common then how come all of the astronomers were surprised to see it? Why is there a news release about a common, garden variety feature?

There are no similar features, i.e. crater + ray (trough) system on the Moon.


In addition: electric discharge has been ruled out as a cause of this unique feature since:

• There is no charge separation caused by the solar wind (as you assume) because Mercury has a shielding magnetic field.
• Mercury does not have an atmosphere to support terrestrial forms of lightning.
• A falsifiable, testable prediction of the idea would be that similar craters would appear elsewhere. For example there should be examples on the Moon since it is exposed to the solar wind. Since more examples are not seen, the idea is falsified.

1 Mercuries magnetic field induces currents in the core!
2 We are not talking atmospheres here though a tenuous one does exist
3

Quote:

However, the term has also been used loosely to describe similar structures on a number of planets in the Solar System, including Mars, Venus, and on a number of moons. All bear remarkable structural resemblance to each other.

And now Mercury can be added to that list.

Quote:

Talk about being obtuse: It is not cosmology.

Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology:
Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales.
Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big?

WOw!!! you really are ???

Forget the planet, scale the electric and magnetic effects, troll!

Quote:

millions of light years big

But magnetic fields ARE!!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

1 Mercuries magnetic field induces currents in the core!

So what?
Show that this induced current disharges on the surface at large enough amperage to create craters then you may have a point. Otherwise you are just speculating.

Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events.

Originally Posted by Sol88

2 We are not talking atmospheres here though a tenuous one does exist

That is the point - you have not given any source for the electric discharge.

Originally Posted by Sol88

3 And now Mercury can be added to that list.

What list? If you mean riles then you really need to have your eyes checked.
You have one example that looks like the picture that you are obsessed with. This is the spider crater + ray system (really a tough system) on Mercury.

Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching.

Quote:

A ray system comprises radial streaks of fine ejecta thrown out during the formation of an impact crater, looking a bit like many thin spokes coming from the hub of a wheel. The rays can extend for lengths up to several times the diameter of their originating crater, and are often accompanied by small secondary craters formed by larger chunks of ejecta. Ray systems have been identified on the Moon, Mercury, and some moons of the outer planets. Originally it was thought that they existed only on planets or moons lacking an atmosphere, but more recently they've been found on Mars in infrared images taken from orbit by Mars Odyssey's thermal imager.

Also learn to read (emphasis added):

Quote:

Think about the logical consequences of this being plasma cosmology:
Scale this "plasma" event up to cosmological scales.
Are you happy with a planet (Mercury) that is millions of light years big?

Are you happy with this?
I am definitely not happy with it !

Originally Posted by Sol88

Forget the planet, scale the electric and magnetic effects, troll!
But magnetic fields ARE!!

Are you silly: You quote the formation of a crater as evidence for plasma cosmology and then remove the planet when you scale it up? How is the crater formed at cosmic scales if there is no planet?

There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that they

• Are generated by planets like Mercury (wrong).
• Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong).
• Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong).

I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo.

Planetary phenomena (e.g. magnetospheres, etc.) are evidence of the validity of plasma physics at planetary scales and support for the ability to scale plasma properties from lab scales to planetary scales and further to interstellar scales.

Getting back to your original obsession - the spider crater on Mercury (for some reason you have derailed yourslef into riles).
The spider crater and the surrounding terrain differ in the density of craters. This leads to a difference in age depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall.

Hypothesis 1: The Spider crater and troughs were created in one event (a lightning strike).
Falsifiable Prediction 1: The Spider crater and troughs are the same age.

Hypothesis 2: The Spider crater and troughs were created in two events.
Falsifiable Prediction 2: The Spider crater and troughs are different ages.

Data: The density of craters on the Spider crater and the terrain containing the troughs (and even in the troughs themselves) is different. Standard astronomy tells us that the crater is a different age from the troughs by a number of years (probably 1000's of years).

For the fourth time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahh I see the intellectual police have been called!

So why did you ask?Once all possible explanations are discarded before question asnwered by explanations,why do you ask then?
(And no intelectual police,but it looked too strange)

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Ahhh so we have found aurora on Mercury then?

Links and citations please!

Remember Mars and Venus surprises!

No, but that does not mean people have not looked, and if it were found, it will not mean that you get the "prediction award."

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

But those papers Tusenfem are saying currents are being induced in the core?

What happens then?

That just makes it all a lot more simple. I had not noticed that they consider the currents to flow in the core (that shows me, I should not just quickly skim the abstract, although I read the Glassmeier paper). Then you just have the original field and the disturbance superposed. The simplest way to see this is at Ganymede, because there the situation is very simple with a harmonically changing magnetic field.

Originally Posted by Sol88

The solar wind is very dynamic and because of Mercuries position right next door to the Sun, what happen if a killer CME blew by?

Such as the Carrington Event? and that's only going back couple hundred years! How old is Mercury? I'll wager it's seen it's fair share of large events!

Ehhh really? Is the solar wind much more dynamic at Mercury than at Venus or Earth? Care to show that?

And Mercury will most definitely be hit by CMEs, not question about that, and then what? Yes, it could be like the "Carrington event", which is this year exactly 150 years ago, and not a "couple of hundred".

Mercury is as old as the planetary system, so about 4 billion years. And then what, if it has seen "its fair share of large events"?

Originally Posted by Sol88

What happens when one of those babies runs into a planet with an induced magnetic field? Like Mercury!

Mercury has a permanent internal magnetic field onto which induction effects are superposed. The effects will be very similar as at Earth, with the one thing that Mercury's magnetic permanent internal field is so much smaller that the Earth's.

Originally Posted by Sol88

All the criteria for my hypothesis are there! Everything by what was on the other end of the discharge!

charge separation and charge equalization. it's what electricity does!

but now the mods have been called in, I see everyone here is going to let this compelling piece of evidence that the universe (or at least our soar system) is electricaly active and gravitationally stagnate!

Even the similar features we see on the moon CAN NOT be explained in any convectional manner, if you were to take the time to think for your self, you would be surprised.

Well, then show us, how this works, and not just handwaving, I can do that well enough myself. Look at the geological characteristics of this spider thingy. It is clear that lots of the structure have different ages. That you cannot explain with one little lightning bolt.

And what "mods" have been called in? Are you getting paranoid?

Unless you can show us a REAL model, then there is nothing to discuss.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by ben m

I will play along with the troll for a second.

Sol88, if you hypothesize that the planet Mercury was once charged up---like a great big capacitor---and that a runaway *discharge* created an arc, and the arc was responsible for the spider-like formation in the Caloris basin ... well, let's do some MATH.

Let's hypothesize that we can charge Mercury up. Just plug in a big jumper cable, or shoot a highly-charged wind at it, or ... something. One way or another, we'll hypothesize that we can build up an electrostatic voltage on the whole planet. How much excess charge can we pack on while doing this?

As an isolated sphere, Mercury's capacitance is about 0.2 millifarads. That's, um, not very much. A *gigavolt* static potential would carry only 200,000 Coulombs (about one car battery). I want to emphasize that a gigavolt is a very, very high potential. There is no way to charge something up to a gigavolt by bathing it in a kilovolt-energy solar wind.

Let's see, how much *energy* do you store when you pack 200,000 C into a gigavolt potential? 2 x 10^14 joules ... about 50 kT of TNT, or something in the ballpark of the Nagasaki atomic bomb.

Therefore, we have (unfortunately) lots of experience with the craters formed by 50 kT energy releases. They're a 100 meters in diameter and a few meters deep---underground explosions might excavate only a hundred meter or so cavity. Moving rock around takes lots of energy.

So what do we find on Mercury? A hole 40,000 meters in diameter.

Sol88, your "arc welder" hypothesis requires energy to be stored somewhere. The largest charge we can expect Mercury to pick up from the Solar Wind is a few kilovolts, giving it a few hundred Joules of energy---whereupon your Giant Arc Discharge Into Space could perhaps occur, but it would barely heat up a cup of tea, much less excavate a 40,000 meter crater.

How much energy do you think you need for the crater, Sol88? How will you charge up an isolated capacitor to the (apparently required) ten teravolts? You can't. Since Mercury could never have been this highly charged, it's never had anything like enough stored electrostatic energy to excavate a crater with an arc discharge. You casually invented an Giant Cosmic Welding Torch, Sol88, but you forgot to find somewhere to plug it in.

You're welcome to do the same calculation under the (equally stupid) assumption that Mercury had (like Earth) a dielectric atmosphere with an internal mechanical charge conveyor. You will have to learn electrostatics to do so.

Thanks Ben.

Sol**, here is your prediction from the model.

A ten tera volt source would be required to meet the discharge model of crater formation.

Now have at it, where and how does this work?

Hypothetical models and then how it might work, thanks.

We know have observation, correlation leading to prediction.

So now comes the interesting part, the part where PC usually falls aprt.

How do you model a system to create that ten teravolt discharge?

This could be really important to the PC/EU theory Sol88.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

So what?
Show that this induced current disharges on the surface at large enough amperage to create craters then you may have a point. Otherwise you are just speculating.

Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events.


That is the point - you have not given any source for the electric discharge.


What list? If you mean riles then you really need to have your eyes checked.
You have one example that looks like the picture that you are obsessed with. This is the spider crater + ray system (really a tough system) on Mercury.

Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching.


Also learn to read (emphasis added):

Are you happy with this?
I am definitely not happy with it !


Are you silly: You quote the formation of a crater as evidence for plasma cosmology and then remove the planet when you scale it up? How is the crater formed at cosmic scales if there is no planet?

There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that they

• Are generated by planets like Mercury (wrong).
• Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong).
• Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong).

I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo.

Planetary phenomena (e.g. magnetospheres, etc.) are evidence of the validity of plasma physics at planetary scales and support for the ability to scale plasma properties from lab scales to planetary scales and further to interstellar scales.

Getting back to your original obsession - the spider crater on Mercury (for some reason you have derailed yourslef into riles).
The spider crater and the surrounding terrain differ in the density of craters. This leads to a difference in age depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall.

Hypothesis 1: The Spider crater and troughs were created in one event (a lightning strike).
Falsifiable Prediction 1: The Spider crater and troughs are the same age.

Hypothesis 2: The Spider crater and troughs were created in two events.
Falsifiable Prediction 2: The Spider crater and troughs are different ages.

Data: The density of craters on the Spider crater and the terrain containing the troughs (and even in the troughs themselves) is different. Standard astronomy tells us that the crater is a different age from the troughs by a number of years (probably 1000's of years).

For the fourth time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

Reality Check,

Quote:

Real scientists have actual numbers from their theories that show that craters and ray systems can be created from impact events.

Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering.

As you are up to speed on this phenomena, are you able to show me any peer reviewed papers on the explanation of the many different varieties of impact formations

e.g Flat floor, terraced wall, central peak et cetera?

Quote:

There are magnetics fields on cosmological scales. You seem to think that they

• Are generated by planets like Mercury (wrong).
• Have similar strengths to planetary magnetic fields (wrong).
• Experience electric discharges for some reason (wrong).

I assume that these cosmological magnetic fields are part of plasma cosmology (or at least one of the many plasma cosmologies). Any plasma cosmology that claims that planetary phenomena are evidence of cosmological phenomena is definitely scientific woo.

and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here.

Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do!

[Sol88]

DD wrote

Quote:

Thanks Ben.

Sol**, here is your prediction from the model.

A ten tera volt source would be required to meet the discharge model of crater formation.

Now have at it, where and how does this work?

Hypothetical models and then how it might work, thanks.

We know have observation, correlation leading to prediction.

So now comes the interesting part, the part where PC usually falls aprt.

How do you model a system to create that ten teravolt discharge?

This could be really important to the PC/EU theory Sol88.

10 x 10¹²V sounds a lot is it? where'd that figure come from?

I gave fairly good description in post 2282 even had a crack at some maths, but which variables shall we use in which equation since Peeks Law was more to do with corona discharge on a wire inside the Earths atmosphere.

We want one for a sphere in a plasma stream.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Reality Check,

Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering.

As you are up to speed on this phenomena, are you able to show me any peer reviewed papers on the explanation of the many different varieties of impact formations

e.g Flat floor, terraced wall, central peak et cetera?



and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here.

Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do!

Hmm, we have coherent sentences, no spelling errors, logical progression of thoughts -- this must be a ghost writer!

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Sol88

It has everything to do with cosmology and the crew here know it, that's why there being obtuse!

Sol88, as a kindness I'll correct your childish misunderstanding of the term "cosmology". In physics and astrophysics, cosmology is the study of the universe on the very largest scales and at the very earliest times. That means not planets, not stars, not solar systems, not even galaxies - but clusters of galaxies.

To give you a sense of the scale, your crater on Mercury is about 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000 the size of the observable universe. Your contention that it has anything at all to do with cosmology is much more absurd than claiming the study of elephant populations is relevant to molecular biology.

[Sol88]

RC wrote

Quote:

Have you ever seen a ray system image? They look nothing like the picture that you are obsessed with, e.g. there is no branching.

Have a long close look at some of the rayed craters (they do have some bearing on the spider crater as the mechanism's maybe similar) and look at the termination point of the rays in relation to the central "impact"? most are off center?

Tycho and Copernicus: Lunar Ray Craters
Credit & Copyright: Steve Mandel, Hidden Valley Observatory

You know just an observation

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

RC wrote

Have a long close look at some of the rayed craters (they do have some bearing on the spider crater as the mechanism's maybe similar) and look at the termination point of the rays in relation to the central "impact"? most are off center?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...on8_mandel.jpg Tycho and Copernicus: Lunar Ray Craters
Credit & Copyright: Steve Mandel, Hidden Valley Observatory

You know just an observation

And nothing like the pattern produced by an electric discharge(no branches).
You know just an observation

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Maybe you could help me here, I've done a fair bit of searching on the net and I am having trouble finding any papers or even pictures of test done involving the science behind impact cratering.

Google: formation of impact craters.
ArXiv gives 183 preprints about impact craters.

Originally Posted by Sol88

and further where on Earth did you get that conclusion, I think you are confused here.

Mercury is just an example of what a tiny itsy bitsy little planets magnetic field can do!

Firstly it is not an example of what the magnetic field can do. It is a "looks like a duck and so must be a duck" hypothesis. Now you have to show it

• quacks like a duck (e.g. find a powerful enough power source),
• flies like a duck (e.g. show that the electric arc actually produces the features),
• and has the DNA of a duck (e.g. find more examples).

This all requires a model, mathematics, predictions and all of those science things.

At best it is an example of planetary science. It has nothing to do with cosmology.

You may as well say that switching on a light is evidence of electricity and so is part of cosmology. What about static electricity? Bar magnets? What about the weather patterns on Pluto?
I could ask you about every single thing that is in this tiny itsy bitsy little solar system. Would you say that everything is cosmological?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Sol88, as a kindness I'll correct your childish misunderstanding of the term "cosmology". In physics and astrophysics, cosmology is the study of the universe on the very largest scales and at the very earliest times. That means not planets, not stars, not solar systems, not even galaxies - but clusters of galaxies.

To give you a sense of the scale, your crater on Mercury is about 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000 the size of the observable universe. Your contention that it has anything at all to do with cosmology is much more absurd than claiming the study of elephant populations is relevant to molecular biology.

Thank you SI.

So how that going? Standard cosmology I mean.

Because you already know what powers galaxies, you already know what makes galaxies rotate, you already know whats makes them collide/merge, you already know how black holes/pulsars/neutron stars/magnatars are formed, you already know what powers an AGN et cetera...

So why are we still searching for answers to standard cosmology's questions.

Just dot the I's and cross the T's and publish a book for the next generation to know that's how it works.

So what where we talking about again?

Oh yeah, that's right charge separation, magnetic fields, electric currents, electric fields, charged particle acceleration and conducting medium (plasma(99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state).

What does the above list have in common with cosmology? wake up man!!

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Sol88

DD wrote

10 x 10¹²V sounds a lot is it? where'd that figure come from?

I gave fairly good description in post 2282 even had a crack at some maths, but which variables shall we use in which equation since Peeks Law was more to do with corona discharge on a wire inside the Earths atmosphere.

We want one for a sphere in a plasma stream.

If believe if you read Ben's post, you will know exactly where it came from. Scaling the size of the crater to an explosion of known strength.

The rest is up to you, momentum can easily provide impact energies that high.

And as I said there are a number of issues for you to model.

1. Energy source.
2. Energy storage.
3. Discharge mechanism.

[Sol88]

Thanks RC will read some tomorrow!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

DD wrote

10 x 10¹²V sounds a lot is it? where'd that figure come from?

I gave fairly good description in post 2282 even had a crack at some maths, but which variables shall we use in which equation since Peeks Law was more to do with corona discharge on a wire inside the Earths atmosphere.

We want one for a sphere in a plasma stream.

You do not need complex mathematics. Assume something charges up Mercury and then the math is easy. Of course if you want to waste you time then go ahead and do it. You will find that you are many orders of magnitude off the required values as has been pointed out to you.

ben m's original "back of envelope" calculation was DD's source of the ten tera volt source figure.
(Added emphasis specially for Sol88)

Originally Posted by ben m

I will play along with the troll for a second.

Sol88, if you hypothesize that the planet Mercury was once charged up---like a great big capacitor---and that a runaway *discharge* created an arc, and the arc was responsible for the spider-like formation in the Caloris basin ... well, let's do some MATH.

Let's hypothesize that we can charge Mercury up. Just plug in a big jumper cable, or shoot a highly-charged wind at it, or ... something. One way or another, we'll hypothesize that we can build up an electrostatic voltage on the whole planet. How much excess charge can we pack on while doing this?

As an isolated sphere, Mercury's capacitance is about 0.2 millifarads. That's, um, not very much. A *gigavolt* static potential would carry only 200,000 Coulombs (about one car battery). I want to emphasize that a gigavolt is a very, very high potential. There is no way to charge something up to a gigavolt by bathing it in a kilovolt-energy solar wind.

Let's see, how much *energy* do you store when you pack 200,000 C into a gigavolt potential? 2 x 10^14 joules ... about 50 kT of TNT, or something in the ballpark of the Nagasaki atomic bomb.

Therefore, we have (unfortunately) lots of experience with the craters formed by 50 kT energy releases. They're a 100 meters in diameter and a few meters deep---underground explosions might excavate only a hundred meter or so cavity. Moving rock around takes lots of energy.

So what do we find on Mercury? A hole 40,000 meters in diameter.

Sol88, your "arc welder" hypothesis requires energy to be stored somewhere. The largest charge we can expect Mercury to pick up from the Solar Wind is a few kilovolts, giving it a few hundred Joules of energy---whereupon your Giant Arc Discharge Into Space could perhaps occur, but it would barely heat up a cup of tea, much less excavate a 40,000 meter crater.

How much energy do you think you need for the crater, Sol88? How will you charge up an isolated capacitor to the (apparently required) ten teravolts? You can't. Since Mercury could never have been this highly charged, it's never had anything like enough stored electrostatic energy to excavate a crater with an arc discharge. You casually invented an Giant Cosmic Welding Torch, Sol88, but you forgot to find somewhere to plug it in.

You're welcome to do the same calculation under the (equally stupid) assumption that Mercury had (like Earth) a dielectric atmosphere with an internal mechanical charge conveyor. You will have to learn electrostatics to do so.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So why are we still searching for answers to standard cosmology's questions.

This is obvious even for you Sol88: To answer the questions!

There are several remaining questions, e.g.

• What is the composition of dark matter?
• What is the composition of dark energy?
• BBT is a factor of 2 out with the abundance of lithium. Is this a problem with BBT or the model used to predict the formation of Li in stars?

Note that the first question is one that even plasma cosmology will have to answer - but given that it cannot even address the CMB thermal and power spectra this is unlikely.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Hmm, we have coherent sentences, no spelling errors, logical progression of thoughts -- this must be a ghost writer!

Not so:
"test" should be "tests"
"phenomena" should be "phenomenon"
but still, impressive by Sol88 standards

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So how that going? Standard cosmology I mean.

Extraordinarily well. Cosmology is in its golden age - tons of extremely accurate data, rapid narrowing of the cosmological parameter space... for the first time in history there really is a precise standard model of cosmology, and it fits observations very well.

Quote:

Because you already know what powers galaxies

"Powers galaxies"? What on earth is that supposed to mean - they're not light bulbs, you know. If you meant stars, yes, that's very well understood.

Quote:

you already know what makes galaxies rotate

Newton and Galileo knew that, 400 years ago. Apparently some people haven't heard the news about Newton's laws yet.

Quote:

you already know whats makes them collide/merge

Same as above.

Quote:

you already know how black holes/pulsars/neutron stars/magnatars are formed

Not entirely, but pretty much. And that doesn't have much to do with cosmology.

Quote:

you already know what powers an AGN

Again with "powers". But yes, and the level of precision is improving very rapidly these days.

Quote:

So why are we still searching for answers to standard cosmology's questions.

That's a question only you can answer...

Quote:

Just dot the I's and cross the T's and publish a book for the next generation to know that's how it works.

Already done - many times over.

Quote:

So what where we talking about again?

Beats me!

Quote:

Oh yeah, that's right charge separation, magnetic fields, electric currents, electric fields, charged particle acceleration and conducting medium (plasma(99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state).

Right - all sorts of stuff that has nothing to do with cosmology.

Quote:

What does the above list have in common with cosmology? wake up man!!

What are you talking about?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Can we see the surface of Jupiter now?

I call ********!

Your ignorance is apalling.

That you use it as an argument is amusing.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect!

Black Holes are a mathematical construct.

Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.

How can someone with so little knowledge of layman-level physics possibly claim to know more than the experts in the field ?

Ignorance breeds confidence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I am not a mathematician by a long shot! And maths is no substitute for common sense!

Why, yes. Yes it is a good substitute for common sense because common sense is what we USED to use to explain the universe and it got us gods and witches.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anaconda wrote

But it's just so much fun, watching them blindly follow and regurgitate the standard party line!

Well it's a good thing you're foregoing those evil mathematical equations and skipping straight to the common sense, eh ?

Quote:

The pictures ARE the data

Just like conspiracy theorists.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Where are you getting your numbers from?

Did you happen to read these papers? Or are you still looking for your wall socket to plug you electrical cord in?

I take you do understand what induced means in this context? Magnetic induction


INDUCED MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS AT PLANET MERCURY

You did NOT present an "induction" hypothesis for crater formation. You posted a bunch of photos of voltage-driven, low-magnetic-field electric arcs.

If you want to throw away that hypothesis, it's fine with me, but that's what you proposed and that's all that I see in your "Mercury looks like Y" photos. That was your hypothesis (as far as you had thought it out), now you recognize that it's a stupid hypothesis.

Now that we've got that out of the way, please do not forget yourself and repost a bunch of pictures of welding arcs, discharge sparks, etc., since they have nothing to do with your hypothesis any more.

Moving on to your new hypothesis: "the Spider Crater on Mercury represents the discharge of some sort of magnetic induction effect" This is, sorry to say, even stupider. Why don't you draw us a diagram showing just one example of a variable magnetic field---from what source? With what direction? Changing in what direction and with what time dependence?---which, to your best understanding of the vector equation , would generate fields appropriate for a 10^14 Joule discharge. Take your time and think about it.

(Or perhaps you don't want to think about it, you just want to assume that eventually you'll find some Web page somewhere with the words "electromagnetic" and "Mercury" in it, and that's all you need to do to topple mainstream science.)

[DeiRenDopa]

but, but, ... ben m:

a) he did not even recognise that E and B were in bold (considerably earlier, when I was still trying to engage in a discussion with him), much less understood that it made a difference (not to mention why)

b) he has no idea what a vector is, much less what a vector equation is

c) you missed his post, quoted by Belz, where he declares that you don't need no equations (common sense is all you need)

d) but worst of all, ben m, you have no pictures in your post! not even a smilie!

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data.

The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies.

So 99% of the matter in the universe is NOT in plasma?!???!!???

What an admission from a PC/EU advocate!

What's unique and amazing about your post is that you're actually almost right. As you point out, the main conclusion we can draw from the Bullet cluster observations by themselves is merely that very little of the mass in those clusters is in plasma.

Of course when you throw in everything else we know from other observations, it's highly unlikely that the excess matter is baryonic (there just aren't any good baryonic candidates) - which is why they weren't very careful with the wording in their paper.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

However, in your review of the early parts of this thread - I think you said you'd be undertaking such a review, right? - please pay attention to Z's posting style. ...

I have looked at the earlier posts, though I admit in a less than completely rigorous fashion. I think I have seen enough of everyone's posts, here and on other boards, to get the point.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The flaw in this argument is this assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible, bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass, in other words have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very long exposures have shown that they have 'red halos', halos of stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.

This turns out not to be much of an argument, and is in fact one that has already been addressed in the literature. It is, therefore, not an "assumption" at all, in the sense you mean, but rather a logical consequence of observation.

First, let me address the case of the Milky Way in particular. We can't see it from outside, but of course we are a lot closer to the stellar halo of our own Galaxy than we are to the halo of any other galaxy. The advent of the Hubble Space Telescope has made it possible to search for read dwarf stars directly in the Milky Way halo, which could not be previously done from the ground. The result is that there are far too few red dwarf stars in the Galactic halo to account for the gravitational requirements that lead to the assumption of dark matter (see, i.e. Hubble Rules Out a Leading Explanation for Dark Matter, press release & images dated 17 October 1994). And see the paper The stellar halo of the Galaxy; Amina Helmi, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 15(3): 145-188, June 2008. This paper reviews the stellar halo of the Milky Way in detail, and includes a comment on gravitational microlensing that is relevant & important:

For example, if a significant fraction of the dark matter had been baryonic (composed by MACHO's, Paczynski 1986), then the stellar and dark halos would presumably be indistinguishable. However, this scenario appears unlikely, as the microlensing surveys are unable to assign more than 8% of the matter to compact dark objects (Tisserand et al. 2007, although see Alcock et al. 2000 for a different, though earlier result).

The "different though earlier" result from Alcock, et al., 2007 puts the halo MACHO fraction at 20%, and estimates the total MACHO mass of the halo at about 9x10¹⁰ solar masses. Compare this to a total Milky Way mass of a few times 10¹² solar masses, and we see that even with the most optimistic assumptions, the total MACHO mass of the Milky Way halo is no more than about 10% of the total mass of the Galaxy. Hence, for the case of our own Milky Way, the assumption of non baryonic dark matter cannot be avoided, assuming the baryons come in the form of compact objects. I will have more to say about that shortly.

Now, let us consider the red halos that Zeuzzz refers to, supporting his claim that these halos could represent most or all of the dark matter as baryonic mass. To begin with, note the result already established above for our own Milky Way. If we make the not so bold assumption that the Milky Way is not a special case as spiral galaxies go, then we would expect that the same should be true for other spiral galaxies, on average. Namely, they do not have significant baryonic halos in the form of compact objects. This already makes the assumption that this is indeed the case for the Bullet Cluster galaxies a reasonable one. However, see the paper Red Halos of Galaxies Reservoirs of Baryonic Dark Matter?, Zackrisson et al., May 2008, from the IAU symposium proceedings. The red halos are not just "faint", they are "extremely faint". Zibetti, White & Brinkman, 2004 had to stack scaled images of 1047 galaxies from the SDSS just to get reliable photometry for halos with surface brightness of about 30 magnitudes per square arcsecond. The multiband colors for their stacked halo look like the color of the halo found around NGC 5907. However, Yost et al., 2000 looked at NGC 5907 in the near infrared, 3.5 - 5 microns, and did not detect the halo at all. These observations pose significant problems for interpretation. The multiband colors are not consistent with a normal distribution of stellar masses, and require a population unusually rich in low mass stars. However, low mass stars should stand out well in the near infrared, so a literal interpretation of the failure to detect the halo of NGC 5907 in the near infrared would imply that the halo is not made of stars at all. In any case, that failure limits the baryonic mass fraction of the halo to about 15%, if it is in fact made up of red dwarf stars.

The upshot of all this is that observation places strong limits on the mass available in these red halos. Photometry, sensitive to red dwarf stars, and microlensing, sensitive to all compact objects, both clearly show that there is not enough mass in the halo to account for the mass required to explain the dark matter effect. And the difference is significant. So there is no "flaw in the assumption" of Clowe et al., so long as we are talking about compact objects.

As for the gas clouds, they too will not do the job. In a collision between galaxies, we expect individual stars to collide only rarely, if at all. Likewise, in a collision between galaxy clusters, we expect individual galaxies to collide only rarely. However, the intracluster gas should undergo significant collision, as shown in the Clowe et al. paper. If there are cold intracluster clouds, they will be heated by the collision and emit X-rays. Only small clouds tied to the galaxy might escape this fate. But those clouds must carry negligible mass. After all, Briggs, 2004 tells us "Neutral intergalactic clouds are so greatly out numbered by galaxies that their integral HI content is negligible in comparison to that contained in optically luminous galaxies." HI is neutral hydrogen. So here again, observation clearly implies that the dark matter cannot be made of HI clouds.

So the conclusion is that the argument put forward by Zeuzzz is not valid. The "flaw in the assumption" is imaginary and not real. The conclusion reached by Clowe et al. stands at least as a reasonable interpretation of the observations. However, as we see from the 193 citations (so far), there is considerable discussion of the interpretation of the Bullet Cluster collision. There are claims that modified gravity theories can still do away with dark matter, and explain the observations, but this remains controversial. This is a point worth noting. There are legitimate alternative explanations put forth for discussion, based on modified gravity theories. They are not conclusive, but they are scientifically valid exercises. However, Zeuzzz, and other alternative critics typical of this and other discussion groups, are far to dismissive and arrogant in their approach, and base their claims not on legitimate scientific grounds, but on simplistic knee-jerk reactions. Just a little research would have quickly shown the the alternative put forth by Zeuzzz has already been outdated by research that is in some cases many years old.

[Sol88]

So the spider crater shall be swept under the carpet as just a little impact crater with some idiosyncrasies!

We'll (eventually) find the evidence that tells us it's an impact crater over laid on a graben system!

Not many people engaged in trying to understand what this feature is and means, RC had a crack, but unfortunately came up with even more outlandish claims than me! wOw!

Everyone else dodged the question? Or just waved it of as an impact crater and from some of the papers RC sent us a link for, they *(mainstream) have NOT been able to replicate the terraced walls, central peaks, flat floors, crater chains and ray/spider features of so many of the solar systems idiosyncratic crater system.

Surely smashing something into something else in the lab should be able to reproduce these effects! Even very large >1mt thermonuclear blast can not replicated these crater features??

Now a percentage of craters we see on planets/moons would be from impact as there are lots of "bits" out there, but I think these would look more like your stereotypical craters, such as:

Nuclear Blast Crater

And one on Mars

I mean look at when they went a hunt'n for the impact crater here;

Image Credit:
NASA/JPL/MSSS

Quote:

The picture on the left (above, A) is a mosaic of three MOC high resolution images and one much lower-resolution Viking image. From left to right, the images used in the mosaic are: Viking 1 516A55, MOC E05-01904, MOCM21-00272, and MOC M08-03697. Image E05-01904 is the one taken in June 2001 by pointing the spacecraft. It captured the impact crater responsible for the rays. A close-up of the crater, which is only 130 meters (427 ft) across, is shown on the right (above, B). This crater is only one-tenth the size of the famous Meteor Crater in northern Arizona.

The June 2001 MOC image reveals many surprises about this feature. For one, the crater is not located at the center of the bright area from which the dark rays radiate. The rays point to the center of this bright area, not the crater. Further, the dark material ejected from the crater--immediately adjacent to the crater rim in the picture on the right (above, B)--is not continuously connected to the larger pattern of rays. Asymmetries in crater form and ejecta patterns are generally believed to occur when the impact is oblique to the surface. The offset of the crater from the center of the rays suggests that the meteor struck at an angle, most likely from the bottom/lower right (south/southeast). The strange geometry of the rays is quite different from that seen for rays associated with impact craters on the Moon and other airless bodies; one possible explanation is that they resulted from disruption of dust on the martian surface by winds generated by the shock wave as the meteor plunged through the martian atmosphere before it struck the ground.

LINK


Seems standard astronomers can not account for such different forms of "impact" craters found on so many bodies in the solar system, or at least no consistent explanation! why?

If it's too hard just forget about it and move along eh? Is that scientific progress?

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems standard astronomers can not account for such different forms of "impact" craters found on so many bodies in the solar system, or at least no consistent explanation!

Even if the statement were true, it would be irrelevant; it does not mean that your explanation must be, or even could be right. Indeed, while blathering away about Pantheon Fossae, you have ignored my response in Post 2267. Are you going to admit that I am too much for you to handle?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Surely smashing something into something else in the lab should be able to reproduce these effects! Even very large >1mt thermonuclear blast can not replicated these crater features??

Why would you expect it to? First off, that's small compared to the energy released in many asteroid collisions. Secondly, why would you expect an explosion and an impact to produce the same results? The energy transfer mechanisms aren't identical, nor are the ratios of energy to momentum.

You didn't source your picture (bad form), but it appears to come from the Sedan test. In this test, the bomb was detonated under ground. So even if we could use surface detonations of a bomb to simulate asteroid impacts (it's not clear that we can), it should be fairly obvious that subterranean detonations will not produce the same dynamics as a surface impact. So it's absolutely no surprise that the crater doesn't look like what you'd get from an asteroid impact. But I bet you never even stopped to consider whether this was a surface detonation or an underground one, did you?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So the spider crater shall be swept under the carpet as just a little impact crater with some idiosyncrasies!

We'll (eventually) find the evidence that tells us it's an impact crater over laid on a graben system!

Not many people engaged in trying to understand what this feature is and means, RC had a crack, but unfortunately came up with even more outlandish claims than me! wOw!

I made no claims. I merely pointed out in my opinion that the image looked like 2 separate events due to the lack of craters in the spider crater compared to the surrounding terrain. These could be 2 impact events or something else. My amateur guess: A volcanic area created by the formation of the Caloris Basin with a recent impact crater in the center.

It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults.

Nothing could be more outlandish than your physically impossible claim that you based on the fallacy that if something looks like somtheing else than it must be that.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Everyone else dodged the question? Or just waved it of as an impact crater and from some of the papers RC sent us a link for, they *(mainstream) have NOT been able to replicate the terraced walls, central peaks, flat floors, crater chains and ray/spider features of so many of the solar systems idiosyncratic crater system.

"so many"
Is that 1, 100, 1000 or 1000000000 craters that cannot be explained (yet)?

I never posted any links to papers. But I do know (but from memories of distant astronomy classes) that "the terraced walls, central peaks, flat floors, crater chains and ray/spider features of so many of the solar systems idiosyncratic crater system" have been replicated. The exception is the 1 "spider feature" that you are obsessed with.

You have three (count them Sol88: 1, 2, 3) images. There have been 1000's of craters that have been imaged and are not idiosyncratic.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Seems standard astronomers can not account for such different forms of "impact" craters found on so many bodies in the solar system, or at least no consistent explanation! why?

If it's too hard just forget about it and move along eh? Is that scientific progress?

Let see: Millions of impact craters in the solar system. 1000's of them have been photographed and explained. You have a few that scientists are not sure about.
Guess what - that is science (investigating the unknown). Learn to live with it!

Do you want to get back to plasma cosmology sometime (maybe this century )?

[Reality Check]

My guess is that you stopped reading the linked page when you got something that fitted your preconceived idea and missed the actual explanation.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Quote:

The June 2001 MOC image reveals many surprises about this feature. For one, the crater is not located at the center of the bright area from which the dark rays radiate. The rays point to the center of this bright area, not the crater. Further, the dark material ejected from the crater--immediately adjacent to the crater rim in the picture on the right (above, B)--is not continuously connected to the larger pattern of rays. Asymmetries in crater form and ejecta patterns are generally believed to occur when the impact is oblique to the surface. The offset of the crater from the center of the rays suggests that the meteor struck at an angle, most likely from the bottom/lower right (south/southeast). The strange geometry of the rays is quite different from that seen for rays associated with impact craters on the Moon and other airless bodies; one possible explanation is that they resulted from disruption of dust on the martian surface by winds generated by the shock wave as the meteor plunged through the martian atmosphere before it struck the ground.

LINK

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Even if the statement were true, it would be irrelevant; it does not mean that your explanation must be, or even could be right. Indeed, while blathering away about Pantheon Fossae, you have ignored my response in Post 2267. Are you going to admit that I am too much for you to handle?

no I did not!

You said in post 2267

Quote:

Why the geological explanation should not be rejected
1) The Apollodorus crater is entirely consistent with impact crater shapes, both from physical models, and from laboratory experiments modeling impact features. There is no reason to reject this as an impact feature.
2) The assumption of pre-existing extensional stress in Caloris Basin is consistent with the observed presence of circumferential graben in the outer Caloris Basin, and is consistent with extensional stress in terrestrial basins.
3) The shape and pattern of channels in Caloris Basin is consistent with the geological interpretation that they are grabens.
4) There is no fundamental energy problem; the impact and pre-existing extensional stress provide all of the energy necessary to explain the work done in creating the grabens.

And RC wrote

Quote:

I made no claims. I merely pointed out in my opinion that the image looked like 2 separate events due to the lack of craters in the spider crater compared to the surrounding terrain. These could be 2 impact events or something else. My amateur guess: A volcanic area created by the formation of the Caloris Basin with a recent impact crater in the center.

It is definitely not a graben system which is a depressed block of land bordered by parallel faults.

Whoo boy

They are! not wait there not...who knows!

[The Man]

What does Reality Check's post have to do with you not responding to what Tim Thompson posted? Since you keep referring to RC are you the Richard Cranium of which you speak?