Ulterior motives of "Pseudoscience" against "craterchains"

What do you think Norval? Or are you going to come up with some "theory" explaining that you can't push past "supersonic" velocities in space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Btw not all space is devoid of molecules, while molecules exist sound can travel however if there is more space then molecules a scream wouldn't reach very far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

5 atoms/cm3 is by far a horrible medium for sound travel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very little scream perhaps? (j/k)

 

You scream in space you would move a few atoms at most, and it would be lost in random motion very quickly. It would take a very sensitive ear at close range to hear that, unless you blow out air that was trapped in your lungs, then a wave of air would precede out from you, that would be much more detectable.

 

So, where does the column of air come from required to vibrate the vocal chords?

 

So, where does the column of air come from required to vibrate the vocal chords?

The lungs silly!
Not quite your average exhalation when performed in a vacuum however.
Dee Cee

 

FOCLMAO

You can screem, with your last lungfull of air.

 

Just way too funny Norval.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What I want to know is why most just can't get the idea that crater chains are supposed to be so rare because of their cohesiveness, yet there are hundreds of them in our solar system? Yet the math odds say there might be ONE?!?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hundreds of craterchains compared to millions to billions of impact craters = very rare.

 

The same could be said for Identical twins Norval, however there are lots of them about.

 

The inability or lack of an ability to discern the probabilities mathematically of such a happening is your problem, not mine. That you can’t even accept what scientists and your own math problem solvers here at scifoolems have stated about the math is enough in and of itself to question your inability to perceive the rarity of these crater chains. Denial is still your best option it appears.

 

Actually, it is your problem.

Most of your shown crater chains are not made of craters of all the same size. It's fairly trivial to calculate the difference in sizes... but then you need some control group for natural crater sizes... which can't be done if your theory is right. So you go with the worst case and assume impact craters are evenly distributed between 0m and (whatever your biggest size is). Given your wide range in crater sizes within a chain, this isn't going to be a very low number. Of course this involves an understanding of accuracy when taking measurements from a digital picture, and more importantly counting... so I doubt you'll actually do it.

That said, it's seems to become our problem because you won't shut up about it and won't do any honest research. If only we gave a shit....

 

I wasn't denying anything Norval, mearly stating that You could look at the chance of identical twins (Or even larger "Litters") and suggest their must be intelligence because of the near exact symmetry, However the reality is that its just a fluke of nature.

Admittedly you could suggest that certain chemical interactions, Cosmic rays, acts of god and the like were at play, however there overall interaction generates a flurry of chaos, not the afore percieved order of Identical Twins (or greater).

To suggest that your craters (which knowing are disputed as to whether they are from impacts or pitfalls following a faultline) were generated either to present intelligence or from "The powers that be" blowing some civillzation that has no proof of existance to bits, There is no wonder why some people would use the "Kook" or "Crank" words.

However I refrain from that because I know you've probably been through alot at various points in your life, like currently trying to convey something that people aren't going to see or believe without some collaberating evidence. I know you could state that you have "Shown evidence", however it's ellusive evidence, it's not something that can be tagged as an exhibit and deemed admissible as evidence.

I would suggest that if you want to convey your theory, firstly make sure you develop your "Absolute" theory, namely to the point where you have tossed the options about so more and read through the evidence repeatedly that you can rule things out.
To do this you could skip the How (since you've decided that one) but then ask the When, why's and wheres. Don't forget though that it's not about generating an answer for each, it's about collecting the evidence up to affirm if the answers you generate are correct as a whole, otherwise you'll have to scrap those answers and start again with a different kernel of thought.

Then once you have contested your theory enough, should you suggest it to others because others can take angles to your thoughts that you would not have seen previously. So to suggest that such people are attacking you or your theory is incorrect, they are mearly trying to portray their perceptions and angles which you should take into consideration to make your theorum "Irrefutable".

 

kids in cars dont cause accidents; accidents in cars cause kids.

 

If you'd never seen a kid before and never saw a line of cars before you might just say that a kid dropped them there all in a line.

The thing is that cars do not happen naturally... impact/subduction craters do. They have been several reasons put forth for why they happen in a line naturally... while the only theory of them being artificial involves aliens in big ships with bad aim and lots of ammo who vanished without a trace (beyond the craters).

 

It is abundantly clear that Persol has no idea what he is posting about.

 

Well perhaps you could point out why? Nah, I didn't think so.

 

Did I miss something here? If these crater chains formed the kind of patterns found in (man made, of course) crop circles, being as they are on distant objects untouched by man, that would make a convincing case for alien presence, subject to rigourous analysis to eliminate all possible natural effects.

But these crater chains are just short straight lines - they look like what they clearly are, the result of a collection of objects in a straight line hitting the ground, or a single object hitting the ground and breaking into pieces, which continue to move in the line of the original momentum.

Straight lines are not a mystery. A pattern of craters like this:

. .. ... ..... ....... ........... ............. ................. ................... .......................

would be indicative of intelligence. A pattern like this: ...oooooooOOooooooo... definitely looks natural to me.