* Nick, I'm glad you et al are on the spherule; now I won't have to dig up much. * This TPOD on Libya's Kebira Crater mentioned the possibility that Iridium was transmuted: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... kebira.htm * On the Transmutations thread I had a post called From Lead into Gold and Iridium at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=209&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&~ * I mentioned in the post a very possible transmutation route for Uranium and Thorium to Lead [rather common elements] and from Lead to Gold, Iridium and Platinum. Here's the latter portion. This quote is slightly modified.
[b = beta-; a = alpha-particle {beta is an electron that combines with a proton to form a neutron, alpha is a Helium nucleus of 2 protons and 2 neutrons}]: Pb82:208 -b= Bi83:208 Bi83:208 -b= Po84:208 Po84:208 -a= Pb82:204 Pb82:204 -a= Hg80:200 Hg80:200 -Li3:7= Ir77:193. - Iridium then can be fused with Hydrogen or Helium to make Platinum or Gold: Ir77:193 +H1:1= Pt78:194; Ir77:193 +He2:4= Au79:197. - So it seems possible that the ancients may have witnessed natural transmutation of Lead into Gold, Iridium and Platinum.
Lloyd
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
* At this site is mentioned element amounts in the KT boundary compared to amounts above and below the KT layer: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/kt/boundary.html * Here's what it shows, along with the amount of change that I calculated, which is the average amount in the KT layer minus the average amount above and below it. * The elements are given in micrograms per gram of soil, except for those shown as %, which means the percent of the soil. * KTB means in the KT Boundary; <>KTB means above and below the KT Boundary. _________ KTB v <>KTB _ Change Al2O3 (%) 32.9 v 31.7 ___ 1.2 K (%) ___ .52 v .81 _____ -0.29 TiO2 (%)_ 2.0 v .757 ____ 1.243 Sc ______ 23.3 v 6.0 ____ 17.3 V _______ 137 v 27 _____ 110 Cr ______ 67.3 v 3.3 ____ 64 Co ______ 9.8 v 2.7 _____ 7.1 As ______ 36 v 4.1 _____ 31.9 Se ______ 8.0 v 4.8 ____ 3.2 Sb ______ 6.3 v .38 ____ 5.92 La ______ 43 v 28 _____ 15 Yb ______ 1.5 v 2.1 ____ -0.6 Hf ______ 4.5 v 7.6 ____ -3.1 Ir ______ .0017 v .000010 _ 0.00169 Th ______ 7.8 v 9.2 ___ -1.4
* In my prior post I mentioned that Lead, Uranium and Thorium seemed the most likely sources of Iridium in the KT layer. According to this, no significant amount of Lead or Uranium was found, but Thorium was. The change in the amount of Thorium isn't much, but seems to be more than enough to account for the increase in Iridium, which is rather miniscule. * This also shows that some of the K may have transmuted to Al and Ti, as well as the other listed elements that increased.
mharratsc
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
And here is the TPOD that talks about how the hematite version of the spherules are formed, complete with 'artificial blueberries' that were created in a lab via electrical discharge:
I am not familiar with how lithium might pop out of mercury — can you elucidate? Some curious assimilation of antiprotons perhaps ?
Lloyd
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
* Re Hg80:200 -Li3:7= Ir77:193, or Mercury splitting into Lithium and Iridium, I think I recall that Kervran had evidence that several Lithium atoms do transmute by fusion into Iron. I don't remember if he found any other transmutations that involved Lithium, but I suspect that the reverse process of losing Lithium atoms, i.e. fissioning, may occur under special conditions. This would need to be tested, since it's merely a theory from my standpoint. * It's also possible that, instead of fissioning into Lithium and Iridium, Mercury may fission into Iridium and an alpha particle, a proton and a neutron, since Li3:7 = He2:4 + H1:1 + n0:1. * The He2:4 is well-known alpha decay. I'm nearly certain that Kervran found that transmutations often involve adding or losing a proton, which is equivalent to adding or losing a Hydrogen atom. And we know that radioactive elements often give off neutrons. * Uranium and Thorium currently are practically non-radioactive, because, to observe a gram or so of Uranium 238 reduce to half that amount would take about 4.5 billion years and to observe Thorium do the same would take 14 billion years. So they're almost stable elements. If the electrical charge on Earth were more or less, they would likely be even stabler or less stable. Other radioactive elements have much shorter half-lives. * Mercury is very close to being an unstable, i.e. radioactive, element. There's only Lead and Bismuth that are closer to being unstable. So it would probably not take much change in our electrical environment to make all 3 of those elements radioactive. An electric discharge would probably be quite sufficient, if strong enough.
simple simon
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
Hi, I find EU theory more than just interesting. "revelatory" or "paradigm-shattering"might better describe it. But I have a question. I'm not sure which thread to post it on, but this seemed relevant and current.
My question is not about iridium, but is about "impact" craters.
I have seen many shooting stars and they often come in at what appears to be a very acute angle. And these are very small objects with little mass and momentum (or charge) compared to, say, a two mile wide lump. If this lump did hit the moon, then surely it would also hit the ground at something less than 90-degrees to the surface on nearly every occasion. Yet every impact crater I have seen on the moon (and on every other planet, moon and asteroid in the solar system) is a perfect circles. Not one has the elongated impact crater that you would associate with an object hitting the ground, at astronomical speed, at an angle. Throw a stone at a pile of sand, or better still deep mud, and see.
Is there a good reason for this?
StevenJay
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
simple simon wrote: I have seen many shooting stars and they often come in at what appears to be a very acute angle. And these are very small objects with little mass and momentum (or charge) compared to, say, a two mile wide lump. If this lump did hit the moon, then surely it would also hit the ground at something less than 90-degrees to the surface on nearly every occasion. Yet every impact crater I have seen on the moon (and on every other planet, moon and asteroid in the solar system) is a perfect circles. Not one has the elongated impact crater that you would associate with an object hitting the ground, at astronomical speed, at an angle. Throw a stone at a pile of sand, or better still deep mud, and see. Is there a good reason for this?
They're not "impact" craters.
mharratsc
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
To elaborate- they're not impact craters, they're blast craters. Or rather- they are the craters left by an enormous electrical discharge between the foreign body and the planet/moon/whatever-you're-looking-at.
The idea is- the meteor and the stellar body in question have different charge potentials of electricity. Like static electricity in your body vs your cat's nose- if you get close enough, the voltage will arc from the higher charge to the lower charge, balancing out the charges prior to contact.
So- you have this meteor approaching the Earth at this oblique angle. It has it's little charge, and the Earth has it's much higher charge (since it has much higher storage capacity). Depending on the foreign body's speed, it's charge, how dry/wet the atmosphere is that day, etc- when the meteor hits a particular distance from the Earth's surface- WHAM! You got a giant-sized lightning bolt that will most likely blow the meteor to smithereens and scaller pieces of it all over the place. The crater would appear directly below where the meteor was, rather than where the meteor would've arc'ed in for a landing because of the speed of the electrons flowing through the plasma of the 'spark gap' between the meteor and the planet's surface. It would not be elongated, it would be a perfect bull's-eye.
Anyway, that's the way I understand it. Maybe Nick C or somebody should QC my logic on that one
Mike H.
mharratsc
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
Ummm... with little background on large scale electrical dynamics, I suppose I should also specify that the dynamics of what would be seen on a very large scale meteor (or even planetary) close encounter are probably not the same as what you see with little tiny meteors.
Little buggers probably with low or little charge to equalize are the ones that eventually drop to the ground whole- they equalize charge like a comet by sputtering (in place of or in conjunction with 'friction burning' which is the current way of viewing why these meteorites are incandescent on entry into the atmosphere).
Larger meteorites equalizing charge with the lower layers of the atmosphere usually break into pieces because they cannot handle the current over their small surface area. breaking into pieces gives it greater surface area to handle the current, and it probably devolves into several pieces behaving like 'little buggers' coming in.
Big suckers coming in (all the way up to close encounters of moons and planets) are (theoretically) an entirely different story (since we've seen no interactions of that scale in recent human history.) That is where you see charge is too great to be relatively equalized in the atmospheric layers, and the planet kicks up a blast of current that arcs through the atmosphere and leaves a big crater under the incoming rock before it shatters from the electrical stress.
Again, I *hope* that's right and I didn't put my foot in my mouth- I like these shoes but I prefer Cheeto's to shoe leather for snackage :
Mike H.
nick c
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
hi Mike H,
Yes, that analysis looks good to me. My only caveat would be- it is all a matter of scale. Space boulders, and small asteroids or comets, would produce events such as the 1908 Tunguska explosion, which may have left a small crater, see [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070705newcrater.htm]New Tunguska Crater Found[/url2]? also:
Wal Thornhill wrote: In fact, long before physical contact can be achieved between two sizable bodies, their electrical imbalance will need to be dealt with. The two bodies will "feel" the presence of each other as soon as their plasma sheaths touch. In the case of a comet, its plasma sheath can measure millions of kilometers across. Travelling at 20 kilometers per second, a comet will cover one million kilometers in about 14 hours. So, for something of the order of a day, there will be odd electrical effects evident in weather, geomagnetism, auroras and possibly earthquakes. The electrical stress will finally build to the point where an electrical discharge will fly between the earth and the intruder with the strong likelihood that the intruder will be disrupted.
This seems to have been the case for ... Tunguska where the bolide was destroyed before hitting the ground.
Does anyone know if there was ever any iridium found at the Tunguska site?
Again, it is a matter of scale. The large formations (craters, crater chains, rilles, walled plains, blisters, etc) found on the surfaces of the terrestrial type planets and moons, are of a much larger order of magnitude such that the sparks that did the machining would best be explained by a planet sized body in close proximity, ie contacting plasmaspheres. see: [url2=http://www.plasmacosmology.net/scars.html]Electric Discharge Machining[/url2] [url2=http://www.kronia.com/library/electrical1.html]The Origins of the Lunar Sinuous Rilles[/url2] [url2=http://www.kronia.com/library/electrical2.html]Searching for the Scars of Battle[/url2]
That is not to say that impacts cannot or did not occur, only that the features are better explained by EDM, with impacts being relegated to a secondary and relatively, a minor role.
nick c
simple simon
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
[quote="mharratsc"]To elaborate- they're not impact craters, they're blast craters. Or rather- they are the craters left by an enormous electrical discharge between the foreign body and the planet/moon/whatever-you're-looking-at.
Hi again,
sorry, I should have been clearer. I knew the EU theory of how the craters are formed, as you say above.
My point was that, isn't the fact that all, or most, of them are perfect circles rather than elongated gouges, pretty incontrovertible evidence that they can't be impact craters? Is this answered by the gravity only astronomical community? And if it hasn't been addressed by them, then how could they be best confronted with this question to the advantage of the EU proponents? I personally wouldn't know how to go about it.
largish lumps do hit the earth from time to time. What shape are the craters they have left behind?
all the best simon
mharratsc
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
Ha, whoops! Sorry, Simon- I took your question completely the wrong way
Well, of a certainty I'm sure it has been brought up, but probably via the evidence of "flat-bottomed, steep-walled craters usually with a raised conical center that exhibits characteristics of machine via rotating Birkland currents spinning around a central point" kind of argument, rather than a ballistic one. Disregarding the obvious logic of what you say (and I entirely agree with you on it) it seems that when you deal with skeptical scientists, it seems prudent to stick with knowledge you are expert in- and I don't think Mr. Thornhill or any of the other current plasma pioneers have any backgrounds in ballistics :
I will say that I watched a show on Discovery regarding Meteor Crater, Arizona once. In that show, someone did comment on the fact that the crater is rather circular and flat-bottomed, so how the heck did a meteor manage to hit the planet at a 'perfect 90'?
Can you guess what they did? o.O
Why- they hired a computer programmer to input the dimensions of the crater, the rotation of the Earth, the composition of the soil, and come up with some math to show a) the mass of the meteor, b) the velocity, and c) the angle of approach necessary to compensate for the Earth's rotation and curvature to hit just right!
You probably guessed it- this kid was able to come up with some math to say exactly what these guys wanted to hear and created a pretty simulation that made them Ooh! and Ahh!
Seems you can say just about anything in the language of mathematics these days and get away with it.
The biggest clincher for the EU proponents was the fact that even though they found 'shocked' minerals (they said by impact naturally) they never found a meteor in there... even tho a guy bought the land, sank a mineshaft and mined the site for something like 20 years (I think? I didn't actually take notes on this stuff) And never found enough iron or nickel to pay his debts... :
I wonder if the 'shocked' minerals in the crater basin are consistent with that of fulgurites created by lightning strikes, though? I've never heard if anyone has ever investigated that...
Mike H.
Lloyd
Re: Impact Craters and Iridium
* Nick asked about iridium at Tunguska. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999M&PS...34..891R * This link suggests that the percentage of iridium found was below average, which it says suggests it was from a comet, rather than a meteor or asteroid. But, in reality, comets, meteors and asteroids should all be about the same things. They should all have been formed around the time of the Saturn System breakup less than 5,000 years ago. * I think the iridium is likely not originally abundant in any such object, but becomes more abundant in the debris due to transmutation via electric discharge. So the event that produced the worldwide iridium layer produced more iridium, because there was much greater electric discharging then. Discharges from smaller objects would seemingly be less energetic and shorter-lived, producing smaller percentages of iridium.
* Mike, as for shocked minerals in craters, I proposed in another thread, I think the How Continents Divided thread on the NIAMI board, that lightning moves at supersonic speed along with the matter it carries, and this supersonic matter produces shockwaves in minerals. Shattercones are produced and at least some have been found to have remnant magnetism. Electricity produces magnetism.
If you zoom in on the provided Google map link, you should also note the abundance of Lichtenberg figures in this region.
Your thoughts?
Jeff
Lloyd
Re: Does this look like a crater?
It doesn't look much like a crater. On the north side looks like a long rille running from the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic. There seems to be no wall of a crater in that area.
?
