Friday, August 27, 2010

Orcus Patera

"For the Electric universe, the cosmic thunderbolt is the mechanism of cratering on the planets and the moons of our solar system." -- Mel Acheson, natural philosopher, June 2005

"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 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 not associated with volcanic or impact craters, but are easily created by electric arcs in the laboratory and by electric discharge machining (EDM) used in industrial applications." -- Michael Goodspeed, journalist, December 2007

Physorg: Mars's mysterious elongated crater.

( -- Orcus Patera is an enigmatic elliptical depression near Mars's equator, in the eastern hemisphere of the planet. Located between the volcanoes of Elysium Mons and Olympus Mons, its formation remains a mystery.

Often overlooked, this well-defined depression extends approximately 380 km by 140 km in a NNE-SSW direction. It has a rim that rises up to 1800 m above the surrounding plains, while the floor of the depression lies 400-600 m below the surroundings.

The term ‘patera’ is used for deep, complex or irregularly shaped volcanic craters such as the Hadriaca Patera and Tyrrhena Patera at the north-eastern margin of the Hellas impact basin. However, despite its name and the fact that it is positioned near volcanoes, the actual origin of Orcus Patera remains unclear.

Aside from volcanism, there are a number of other possible origins. Orcus Patera may be a large and originally round impact crater, subsequently deformed by compressional forces. Alternatively, it could have formed after the erosion of aligned impact craters. However, the most likely explanation is that it was made in an oblique impact, when a small body struck the surface at a very shallow angle, perhaps less than five degrees from the horizontal.

The existence of tectonic forces at Orcus Patera is evident from the presence of the numerous ‘graben’, rift-valley-like structures that cut across its rim. Up to 2.5 km wide, these graben are oriented roughly east-west and are only visible on the rim and the nearby surroundings.

Within the Orcus Patera depression itself, the large graben are not visible, probably having been covered by later deposits. But smaller graben are present, indicating that several tectonic events have occurred in this region and also suggesting that multiple episodes of deposition have taken place.

The occurrence of ‘wrinkle ridges’ within the depression proves that not only extensional forces, as would be needed to create graben, but also compressive forces shaped this region. The dark shapes near the centre of the depression were probably formed by wind-driven processes, where dark material excavated by small impact events in the depression has been redistributed.

However, the presence of graben and wrinkle-ridges has no bearing on the origin of Orcus Patera, as both can be found all over Mars. The true origin of Orcus Patera remains an enigma.


Jeffery Keown said...

So Electric Universe is the only explanation for round craters and oblong ones.

Too bad there is zero proof of any of EU's claims. No cosmic currents, no charged stars, no "double layers" or z-pinches or any of your other buzzwords (in the way you guys use them...).

Reading EU material is like watching Star Trek writers just toss around techy-sounding words. It sounds good, but doesn't mean dick.

OilIsMastery said...


You are absurd. You deny the existence of electrons now?

Anonymous said...

OIM, The narrative is a good example of verbal virtuosity explaining things without needing to demonstrate physically how those explanations are able to do that.

Jeffery, no scientific theory can be proven, and you have not read the the post OIM put up - science is unable to explain these features, but EU can by recourse to mundane known facts observed in the laboratory and in industry.

Quantum_Flux said...

I think an asteroid hit a subsurface dry ice patch which subsequently exploded even huger upon heating.

Jeffery Keown said...

Jeffery, no scientific theory can be proven, and you have not read the the post OIM put up - science is unable to explain these features, but EU can by recourse to mundane known facts observed in the laboratory and in industry.

I read it. I find it comforting that they can't prove it, and admit they have no explanation for it.

On the other hand, EU advocates claim:

a. Craters are formed by electrical arcs. (Supposedly, lab work has shown small scale cratering in various substances caused by arcs.)

b. We've never seen this happen in nature.

c. Many elliptical craters have been observed.

d. Donald E Scott in his book The Electric Sky, claims that if craters are formed by impacts, the number of ellipticals would be much higher.

e. This fails to account for energy release on impact, subsurface material content (QF's comment #4 above, thank you very much) angle of impact and subsequent erosion.

Either Scott is wrong, and elliptical craters are formed by impacts (an event observed many times). Or these imaginary electrical arcs simply behave however EU advocates like, as the mood or discussion strikes them (pun very much intended).

I realize that much of Oil's advocacy of stupid theories is to get people to think outside of so-called orthodoxy, but some folks take it too far.

EU people in particular seem bent on explaining everything with the same 4 or 5 buzzwords, no math, no observation of phenomena, no room that they might be wrong. Read holoscience or thunderbolts (especially the TPOD) at your leisure. An object is observed, explained (again with the same terms over and over) and that's it.

Evidence and proper mathematical modelling shows EU to be void of scientific rigor. But that doesn't stop fringe theorists. It is the same behavior, whether its EU, AIDS denialism, Expansion Tectonics (or last week, pulsation tectonics), Intelligent Design or Antivaccination. The fringer's mind is made up, and facts do not matter.

The accusation leveled at mainstream science of dogmatic adherence to certain lofty, enshrined theories is observably false. Every week on this very blog, new evidence (discovered by others) is trotted out, presented not as self-correcting advancement, but as previous science proven wrong. On the greater scale of things, it's easly ignored. I should ignore it.


EU is harmless crackpottery. Very likely no one will die because of a faulty hypothesis about how the sun is "Slow Lightning" Other forms of denialism are deadly, some on a large scale.

However, these subjects are studied intently every single day. ID is studied in every bio-lab in the world. Hubble gathers evidence for EU constantly. Doctors the world over research Antivaccination daily.

And do you know what? They continue to find evidence against bad science. Every day.

OilIsMastery said...


FYI electricity is not bad science. Gravitation is.

Quantum_Flux said...


FYI, there is no such thing as "bad science" or even "good science" either. It is not a matter of good or bad, it is a matter of correct hypothesis vs incorrect hypothesis. You hypothesize that electrical arcs of lightning cause the craters, I hypothesize that dry ice exploding can cause craters, others hypothesize it's asteroid impacts....nobody is automatically correct just because a particular hypothesis involves electricity or not.

Jeffery Keown said...

Oils said:

Gravitation is [bad science].

Except for the fact that it works. Small detail, that.

Yeah... no. Allow me to revise my earlier statement. EU will get lots of people killed. By ignoring gravity, and looking for big imaginary bolts of lightning from Mars or Jupiter, we might miss the big fucking rocks heading our way.

Good thing EU is sidelined. Billions more will live than would have died because we were waiting for the thunder.

Fungus the Photo! said...

It is sad that your beliefs are so threatened by a coherent and beautiful set of theories which have massive observational evidence to back them up.

The reason that EU is sidelined is the same that CO2 causes sea levels to rise.... humans can be and are manipulated, as if they were T P Barnum's sucker.

Just like you!

OilIsMastery said...


Well at least you admit you believe in creationism and that creationism and miracles "work."

"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

KV said...


Why don't you put a hot dog on your behind where the Sun does not shine and let it ride up all the way to your tummy. It would be easy as there is no gravity here. You may need some assistance from Hissink to thunderbolt you. Make sure the size of the hot dog is right, otherwise they may to apply much higher voltage to shink fit it.

Jeffery Keown said...

Well at least you admit you believe in creationism and that creationism and miracles "work."

You could just type SHIFT-INSERT. Or CRTL-V...

Why do you trot out Newton's religious stuff again? Modern physics is very removed from Newton.

Does your worship of Democritus make you an Atheist?

Actually, I know why you do it. You have nothing but your Newton quote to defend yourself with. By making me seem like I beleive i nonsense, you hope that my position will be weakened.

Surprise. If someone is right, it doesn't matter what their faith is. He coulda been a tulwar-swinging jihadist, and still do his math correctly.

Faith, being irrational, does not bear on the reality of the facts presented. Newton was right about most of gravity. His work does not function well at larger scales, bigger than, say, the solar system.

But you keep copying and pasting, I'll keep thinking original thoughts and being critical of everything.

Remember those? Or is this the best you can do?

"Expansion tectonics of Ganymede makes baby Wegener cry"

OilIsMastery said...


"Why do you trot out Newton's religious stuff again?"

You believe in gravitation therefore you believe in creationism, miracles, and divine intervention.

"Does your worship of Democritus make you an Atheist?"

Democritus believed in the planets, therefore not an atheist.

Jeffery Keown said...

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

"Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.

Aristotle would describe ignoratio elenchi as a mistake made during a refutation of an argument. He called it "an ignorance" of what makes for a refutation. For Aristotle, ignoratio elenchi amounts to ignorance of logic. To Aristotle all logical fallacies can be reduced to ignoratio elenchi.

Did someone in a labcoat drop you on your head?

Quantum_Flux said...

I got my research hypothesis officially published on Scribed.

Dry Ice Bomb Craters on Mars

Jeffery Keown said...

Interesting stuff.

On earth, it's hard to show this. Mars may in fact have the conditions reequired for it.

I suppose the proof of all of this would be some kind of linear fulgurite formation at the center of craters.

If long filaments of foamy fulgurites are found, then you've got Oils' (very unlikely) thunderbolts of the gods, and if not, then you have to look for shocked quartz. If you find that, then it's an impact crater.

About 5% of the craters in the solar system are somewhat oblate, many of them on airless, dry moons, making your hypothesis somewhat less likely. Perhaps exploding dry ice is the mechanism for some of these, and others are merely low-angle, slower-than-a-certain-critical-value-that escapes-me-at-the-moment impacts.

Either way, knowledge is advanced.

Quantum_Flux said...

Another possibility to consider is that lightning might be striking patches of dry ice.