- The moon has craters the earth does not.
- Present theories explaining the lack of craters do not seem credible
- One possibility is that we are missing the circular features (such as the area around Glastonbury)
- Another is that the meteorites don’t leave craters, but pass through the crust like a bullet through glass.
Anyone who has looked at the moon will notice many features:
And that is the many craters on the moon. Why then is the earth’s surface apparently devoid of these craters. The traditional explanation for this goes along the lines of: “it’s because the surface of the earth gets wiped clean by tectonic plate movements and glaciation and erosion”. But this is hard to reconcile with statements such as this:
Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old (source)
At least some rocks are almost as old as the earth itself, so surely, if the moon is covered in craters then these oldest rocks should have been exposed to meteorites. So their formations should have been affected by meteorite impacts?
And surely, even if the obvious parts of the features themselves were regularly wiped from the “blackboard”, the craters left would still be present in the rocks beneath their surface? And if those circular features still exist in the geology – there ought to be many many such features to find, yet geologists seem to know of very few such craters.
This suggest these potential hypothesis:
- That the craters on the moon represent an era of activity that occurred before the surface of the earth was formed.
- That such craters do exist, but for some reason, geologists have not recognised them as such – perhaps because the geological processes distort them so they are unrecognisable or because they look like something else?
- That meteors impact the earth in a way that does not leave craters as found on the moon.
The first is a great cop out, because I cannot see anyway to prove or disprove that there was an “era of meteorite hits” which has past. It’s possible. But beyond that nothing much can be said (without travelling to other planets and dating craters).
Craters not being recognised as such.
This is one my favourite explanations, because it gives me an excuse to look at maps and try to identify circular(ish) looking features imagining they may be craters. For example here is a map of the Somerset Levels in England (where Glastonbury is) and we can see that it is roughly oval in shape:
And this is my favourite site, because there’s some evidence it may be true. One linguistic interpretation of “Glastonbury” is that it means the hill of glass. Not far away is the Roman town of bath with it’s hot geothermal springs – and with not too much imagination, you can suggest that the Somerset Levels are an ancient meteorite crater, formed with a glancing blow (hence the oval shape), that Glastonbury tor was formed by a superheating process that turned the sand into glass and that the residual energy is still making its way underground to places like Bath.
But when you start looking you can find many such features, such as this one at Ot Moor just NE of Oxford:
Here we have a circularish feature which has then been infilled to form a flat round depression.
The problem with this approach of looking for such circular features, is that there are many reasons why circular geological features might form for other reasons other than meteorites. For example, just as an irregular rock tends to become rounded into a pebble, so an odd shape which infills from the edge tends to get more circular:
Like the swarms of meteorites in the past, unless we undertook detailed geological surveys of many such circular depression, we will never know. So, let’s examine the last potential explanation. That the meteorites hit in a way that doesn’t leave a crater.
The Gunshot theory of Meteorites
A few days ago, some vile creature from the alarmist religion tried to aim some shots at Roy Spencer and/or John Christy in an act of eco-terrorism.
“A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.
All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).”
I presume the image right is of one of the holes left in the glass. Let’s take a closer look at the features of that bullet hole:
We see three distinct features:
- A central bullet hole where the glass has been completely removed by the bullet
- Concentric cracks formed as rings around the central hole (In this case, only one is distinct, but these concentric cracks are largely what makes up the white “blob” is around the bullet hole )
- Radial cracks extending outward from the bullet hole.
But why didn’t the bullet leave a crater like a meteorite? Bullets certainly do leave craters in some surfaces:
The difference is that the window is a layer of hard material whereas if the bullet hits a solid object (or a layer it cannot break through), then it leaves a crater.
But isn’t the main difference between the moon and the earth, that the earth has a molten interior, and so very much like the window, there is a thin solid layer on the surface?Is it possible that at least some meteorites, instead of forming craters on the surface, passed straight through the crust forming a feature more like a gunshot hole? Obviously, on the earth the hole would have been very quickly filled in by magma boiling up from underneath the crust. So, we wouldn’t expect a hole so much as a centre filled with solidified magma aka Granite. But we would expect to see the radial cracks and perhaps also the concentric ones.
Have a look at the geological map of Skye:
The browny-red centre is granite, in other words a circular “blob” of magma that has come up into a hole. The black lines are all dykes which (allowing for some movement of the crust) tend to come out radially from the central granite plug. And whilst less convincing, to the SE of the granite plug, we can see concentric rings of features.
Now take a look at some others dyke swarms:
And whilst rarer, there are also instances of the concentric dykes and similar features such as this one at Ardnamurchan in the western highlands of Scotland.
There is a striking similarity of features between the bullet holes in Dr Cristy’s building’s and the granite plugs, radial dykes and rarer concentric dykes in the earth’s crust.
But geologists either have not considered meteorites, or if they have, they have dismissed them. The current ideas for the cause of these “Dyke Swarms” (why does it sound like a feminist conference?) all involve volcanoes or igneous processes:
This study proposes three models to explain the mechanism of the three major types of mafic dyke swarms. Parallel dyke swarms form in response to a regional stress field, e.g. the mafic dyke swarms in the North China Craton, whereas small radiating dyke swarm forms due to stress constructions around a plutonic or volcanic edifice, such as the dyke swarm at Spanish Peak, USA. The third type of radiating dyke swarm is giant fan-shaped dyke swarm such as the Mackenzie dyke swarm. Fractures that formed prior to magmatism may play a vital role in dictating the dyke swarm geometry. In most of the cases, the pre-existing fractures are induced by tectonic stresses and not by magma injection though magma injection can increase the fracture size by propagation at the dyke tip. (Source)
However, unless you find the meteorite causing the “Gunshot hole”, it would not be easy to tell whether the volcanic eruption was the cause of the dykes (presumably through heat stress) or whether the volcanism occurred as the result of a meteorite puncture hole to the crust.
Rather like it’s impossible to say the holes in Dr Cristy’s building were definitely linked to earth day and global warming alarmists, so I’m not saying these holes have to be from meteorites hitting the earth, but neither can I see any way to dismiss this theory.
And finally – a video of an impact of a meteorite hitting a spherical hard surface. (Obviously with a lot more fizzing than we’d expect for a meteorite hitting the earth).