![How Does A Meteor Impact Create Hexagon Imprints? [1146x265 - 376KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/kcvpJh.png){kind=link}
Also, current mainstream theory requires > 90% of all impact events to occur at 90 degrees of horizontal of the surface.
Which theory is that, specifically?
Which is basically an impossibility.
It's not strange that most impacts on bodies with an atmosphere come from close to 90° because the more oblique the angle of attack, the longer the path through the atmosphere and more complete the burn.
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.
The odds of such impacts are statistical impossibilities which they offer as the norm. Also, the impacts which create such large craters largely wouldn't care about angle because of the required sizes.
Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit. Just like the theory of how the moon was created. More mainstream bullshit.
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.
The odds of such impacts are statistical impossibilities which they offer as the norm.
That's a strange opinion to have given the physics involved. Think about it. Even an object crossing the Moon's orbital path exactly perpendicular will collide with the "front" of the Moon because the Moon literally runs into it. Some objects will manage to be timed just right to t-bone the Moon from the side, but it will be less likely that hitting head on.
Bluntly, the mainstream theory on planetary craters is 100% debunked bullshit.
Debunked by what? In your earlier post you say plasma discharges, but what generates the plasma, where can we see the observations of plasma discharges, and more importantly the measurements of the discharges?
Runs into them but not at perfectly perpendicular angle. That's pure fantasy devoid of thought or reason. Sure, it may happen, but it would be exceptionally rare. Absolutely not the 90% case. In fact, the bulk should be elliptical impact craters with some small number near circular. None of which explains the common hex (multifaceted) craters.
(post is archived)