Tim Thompson

Many thanks indeed for posting that excellent website (NASA Astrophysics Data System - ADS), revealing experimental data on crater morphology.
No problems with download.

Well, I hardly know what to say, except that much of the information contained within the paper has virtually "blown the wind out of my sails".
I say "virtually", because I need to study the material in much more detail, prior to asserting my final conclusions.

To all.
I can say that during my search for answers on the subject of crater formation, nowhere (other than the ADS site) have I found such comprehensive data explaining most of the features as a proven result of precise and careful experiment.

Previously, I had been mostly guided by the following text (which no doubt many of you may be aware of):-

From: "Inversion of crater morphometric data to gain insight on
the cratering process", Robert R. Herrick and Suzanne N. Lyons,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 131-143 (1998)

"Crater morphometry, the quantitative description of the shape of impact craters, has always played a key role in understanding the cratering process. One of the key arguments used to support the impact origin of lunar craters was that they were morphometrically similar to terrestrial explosion craters (Baldwin, 1949). Complex impact craters, craters with such features as a flat floor, a central peak, and wall terraces, have never been created in common geologic materials in the lab or with large explosions. At present, only the morphometry of impact craters on the solid bodies of the solar system can provide data on how various target and impactor properties affect complex crater formation."

I do not possess the entire paper, so I cannot comment on the context in which the paper or the above statement was presented, but it sounded pretty conclusive to me.

Now (if you will bear with me), just a few points from what I have gleaned, concerning the ADS paper and the electrical cratering concept.

One of the major claims of the electric cratering model is the apparent uniqueness of crater circularity (other than of course several ellipsoidal craters such as Messier and Messier A etc)

On page 423, the ADS paper says (assuming it is permissible to quote the odd passage here and there);

"Only an absolutely perpendicular drop yealds a completely symmetric structure of the cross-section profile of the crater and a uniform orientation of ejections in all directions."
That statement fits with the electrical explanation, whereby huge lightning-bolts that purportedly gouged out the craters, always strike the lunar surface vertically (as in terrestrial lightning).

Further, on page 430 of the ADS paper a similar claim is made:

"The circular form of the craters indicates that the fall of the matter was essentially vertical."

Now, in line with this "verticality", I am thinking "electrically" here, but on the same page a quite reasonable assumption is made in respect of impacts as follows:-

Near the Earth, in the remote past, there existed a large number of small-mass satellites, besides the Moon..."The orbits of these satellites were close to the Moon's orbit, which brought about their infall on the Moon's surface and which caused the formation of craters. The cohesion of these satellites was insignificant. They constituted the planetary embryo."

Now, I can actually buy that assumption, because with a little thought, it makes sense in favour of "impacts" and "circularity".

The formation of central peaks is another issue of the processes of supposed electrical cratering.
In the electrical explanation, central peaks are areas in the centers of craters that are "missed" or avoided by the characteristic of a circular rotating arc (Birkelian), preferentially rotating about the undisturbed central mass and which also in the same process, forms terraced rims, flat floors etc.

With regard to central peaks, on page 425 of the ADS:

"When all experimental conditions remain unchanged, the diameter of the models increases with the decrease in the depth of the ground layer, and their depth decreases. The central peak is formed in all cases; however, with increasing depths of the ground, this peak is insignificant and hardly distinguishable. The dimensions of the peak increase with decreasing depth of the ground and the peak acquires the character of a major structural element of the model."

Now to me, born out of pure experiment, the above statement is really interesting and does offer an explanation of central peaks other than those being caused by rotating electric arcs or indeed "rebound" theories (which is another issue).

Further, a brief explanation is also given for the formation of Rilles (though possibly not intended as rilles, but described as "cracks" within the paper).
It seems to me that whether these rilles or "cracks" are sinuous, arcuate, straight or otherwise, they are shown in the experiment to be also accompanied by small craterlets, possibly levees too and no doubt are capable of following torturous terrain.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than rilles being described as "collapsed lava tubes" or even exploded electrons.

Formation of "rays" are also adequately explained in the paper by impactors, both close-in to the crater and those carried to more remote locations (particularly Maria), way over the horizon.

Alternatively to this theory and very briefly FYI, the electrical explanation are that these rays were formed (in cunning ways) by emerging electrons being energetically ejected from just beneath the surface of the remote lowland areas and then following a steady upward inclination toward highly elevated lunar terrain (for reasons I will not go into here), from all directions, eventually arriving at a "high point" or even a mountainous peak.
These electrons from out-lying lowland areas exploded to the surface enroute, forming numerous small craterlets on the way, until finally arriving at the high-point and focus of maximum electrical intensity, caused by the effect and electrical influence of the presumed close-by body (the electrons themselves forming a leader-stroke toward the external body, say Mars).
As in terrestrial lightning, a "connection" is made between the positive ground and negative leader stroke (but on a much larger scale), causing a huge electrical discharge to occur (ultra mega-lightning bolt) and in the same process forming the crater with its associated morphology, as per a rotating arc.
The discharge event may last from a matter of seconds to several minutes, depending on the intensity of charge.
Interestingly, rayed craters are mostly found in highland areas.
Craters with attendant rilles, are mostly found in lowland areas.

Anyway, courtesy of the ADS paper and following this new-found knowledge, I now have to explain how the huge craters on comparatively small bodies such as Saturn's Mimas and Mars' Phobos etc occurred without causing complete annihilation of those bodies.

Also in particular, the cratered grooves on Phobos, which appear to lead towards the huge crater, also require an explanation within impact theory...or, could they indeed be the result of streaming electrical discharges from below the surface as hypothesized in electrical rille and ray formation.
I am not sure at the moment.

Of course, the overall big assumption with all these electrical explanations is whether all planetary bodies, including moons, asteroids, even comets etc actually carry a net negative electrical charge, the intensity of which is presumably dependent on their location within the solar system.

In my view, following the electrical concept, if the planets are electrically charged in this way ie negatively, then the electrical explanation for the current spacing of planetary bodies within the solar system (being dependent perhaps on the electrical force of repulsion), could be a factor that may offer some validity to Bodes law (but disregarding Uranus and Pluto).
Perhaps the "Law" itself is a function of electrostatics (but not so much gravity), existing between the planets.
However, that is another subject.

The ADS paper also offers an explanation for the origin of chondrite-type meteorites, which is very interesting too in the context of once being semi-melted ejecta thrown into space during the formation of craters, depending of course on the state of tectonic conditions in their locality.

I should emphasize here that I am not an official "expert" on the electric universe hypothesis, nor representative of it, but I have read quite extensively on the subject, attended lectures etc., purely out of self-interest.

As suggested by 'caravaliar' on this thread, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a section on this board relating directly to the electric universe concept, now that the "Planet X" saga has diminished to apparent nothingness.

Of course, the suggestion is entirely up to the BA.

John T