![How Does A Meteor Impact Create Hexagon Imprints? [1146x265 - 376KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/kcvpJh.png){kind=link}
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.
It does:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html
But to your actual point, not dense enough to cause meteors to burn up.
Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit. Just like the theory of how the moon was created. More mainstream bullshit.
To your point, we have multiple kinds of polygonal craters on moons. Some are square. Some are "flat" on one side but not the other.
And we have explanations for those:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast26sep_1/
No plasma discharge theory required.
In fact, those are not reproducible by research and experiment. As I said, those are confirmed garbage. Just because people play make believe with a paper, doesn't make it true.
The fact is, if these garbage theories were even close to accurate, ALMOST ALL craters would be elongated. And a large share, extremely elongated. Elongation would be the norm - a statistical requirement. Period. The simple fact is, those theories only make sense when you pretend all of the facts don't exist. Which is in fact precisely what mainstream does here.
But if ignoring the observable facts, evidence, scientific method, and statistical impossibilities is your definition of science, we'll clearly never see eye to eye.
Wake up.
Edit: to date, ONLY (of available theories) plasma discharge explains all of the data and is reproducible, and backed by experiment. Period.
As I said, those are confirmed garbage.
No they are not. The only people calling them garbage are laymen who have no idea what they are talking about.
ALMOST ALL craters would be elongated.
No they wouldn't since it requires a rare and special set of circumstances. You didn't read the link, did you?
But if ignoring the observable facts, evidence, scientific method, and statistical impossibilities is your definition of science, we'll clearly never see eye to eye.
You're ignoring the observable facts, evidence, scientific proof, scientific method, statistical analyses, and passing off unfalsifiable tinfoil hat theories as the explanation.
You clearly don't understand the topic. I've read much on both sides. I didn't read the link because I've previously read the bogus point. The fact you don't understand what you're talking about is the issue.
The fact you're claiming the defacto occurrence is rare and rare is the defacto occurrence, is why you don't understand.
Before you reply, take a second to think about orbital periods and rotation and statistical angles of incidence. Now, stop dishonesty inserting bullshit like atmospheres (which you begrudgingly admit). As the topic is clearly the moon and other such bodies on which craters are well documented.
Ignoring all this, bluntly, only an idiot would choose half baked theories which ignore massive elements of facts in lieu of a theory which explains everything, which is bolstered by experiment, and precisely reproduces the observable facts. Which is why I can easily declare you care not for science.
(post is archived)