/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5418660]

Dear /sci/entists,

I have a humble question on which I would like serious answers from people with far more qualifications than I have. This is why I am here.

Space "anomalies" have always interested me, but because of my lack of education in the various hard sciences, I find myself agnostic about most theses.

To be precise, when shown images of the Moon or Mars, and being told what to see, I find myself with little to no back-up. Here's an example: Ukert crater. It has a distinctive triangular shape. I am aware that such shapes can happen naturally on Earth, although this is usually on a much, much smaller scale. Can such shapes form naturally on such scales?

I have found some of these anomalies to be computer glitches, but Ukert isn't a glitch. I'll post what I have, should this thread generate interest.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.5418669]

Here's an anomaly that turned out to be a glitch. It's between two sets of imaging; next picture shows this.

[Anonymous No.5418673]

>>5418669

The anomaly is clearly on the line between these two sets. The anomaly is therefore not some secret entrance, but a weird glitch.

[Anonymous No.5418684]

>>5418660

>preconceptions about the way a crater "should" look

[Anonymous No.5418693]

>>5418684

Yes, based on all the craters I have seen before. As explained in my opening post, I don't have any education in geology and asked if this crater could have formed naturally.

Why do you reiterate what I said minutes ago? I asked a question in order to get an answer, not to be told what I already know. It's one thing to point out where I err - as if I hadn't done so already - it's another to give an educated answer.

[Anonymous No.5418716]

I certainly hope to get better answers from this board than

>>5418684

I will post more pictures like these, in hopes to get interesting replies from you people.

I usually post this stuff on /x/ but the feedback leaves me nonplussed.

This image is from Mars. These craters seem rather well aligned. What could have made those? In fact, do we know what formed them?

[Anonymous No.5418718]

>>5418716
> build a box of sand
> throw things in it
> science

[Anonymous No.5418722]

>>5418718

How does that make any sense?

[Anonymous No.5418723]

>>5418722
I meant to click >>5418693 in reference to
> I don't have any education in geology and asked if this crater could have formed naturally
do some fucking science

[Anonymous No.5418724]

>>5418723

Why are you so aggressive? Is there a problem? If you don't know the answers to my questions, that's fine, but there's no reason to behave like that.

Nobody forces you to even read this thread. You can just as well read another if you don't like this one.

[Anonymous No.5418726]

>>5418724
> so aggressive
What? Because I used the word "fuck"?

If you're interested in what sort of shapes can "form naturally" just do some experimentation.

[Anonymous No.5418727]

>>5418660
>Ukert crater. It has a distinctive triangular shape.

It has a distinctive shape; it is only in the most vague ways a triangular shape.
The only anomaly here is people trying to find a regular form in that mess, rather than accept that ejecta from a strike should not always be regular.

[Anonymous No.5418731]

Honestly, OP, you're probably not going to get any feedback. There's a small chance that there is a Ph.D student in that particular field reading the board, but it's highly unlikely. It's like going into topics discussing quantum computing. It's a whirlwind of people talking bullshit that they heard in a science class back in highschool with no real education in the area.

[Anonymous No.5418733]

>>5418726
>What? Because I used the word "fuck"?

No, because you respond to my posts but ignore my questions.

>If you're interested in what sort of shapes can "form naturally" just do some experimentation.

Are you suggesting that I can, on my own, simulate a Mars environment and throw asteroids at it and see what's up? I didn't assume you could ignore scales like that.

How can I experiment to know if these craters are perfectly natural?

[Anonymous No.5418736]

>>5418733
> please answer all my questions for me and do my thinking for me, life is too hard
you don't belong here, seriously. Try yahoo answers or some overflow.

[Anonymous No.5418735]

>>5418727
>It has a distinctive shape; it is only in the most vague ways a triangular shape.

Is this meant to be taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.5418740]

>>5418736

I'm not a scientist, I made that clear at the very beginning. If you don't want to take time to answer my questions, fine, but then don't take time to respond to my posts to say absolutely nothing. Why are you even doing this? Are you on /sci/ to vent your anger or something?

I come here to hear educated people's opinions. You obviously have nothing to teach me, so go sit in a corner. You're not needed in this thread, and you only speak on behalf of yourself, nobody else.

[Anonymous No.5418742]

>>5418736

[Anonymous No.5418746]

>>5418740
> I'm not a scientist
Did I ask you to use expensive equipment which requires a doctorate to understand? I suggested you experiment with a box of sand and see if you can learn anything. Since you are incapable of learning by throwing things into sand, why do you suppose you'd learn anything by us telling you?

[Anonymous No.5418752]

I see there are some oversimplifications here, which might have cause problems perceiving why irregular (non-round) 'splash' craters happen:

they are very often sites of more than one strike
where there is erosion earlier strikes will have changes shape, edges, and have filled in
strikes occur at many angles, sometimes these are quite angular
the material they are striking varies in shape (mountains, rilles, sandy beds, debris slopes)
the material they are striking varies in density, even across the same strike (layered rock, etc)

and aside from erosion, these are usually all happening at the same time.

[Anonymous No.5418753]

>>5418746
>Did I ask you to use expensive equipment which requires a doctorate to understand? I suggested you experiment with a box of sand and see if you can learn anything.

I'm only answering this because it's funny. How, on Earth, can I use a sandbox to learn anything about craters on Mars which measure several kilometers in length?

I'm pretty sure I can't learn anything from playing in a sandbox. Let's be a little more serious.

>why do you suppose you'd learn anything by us telling you?

Well then why would you suppose I'd learn from asking yahoo? Why would you suppose I'd learn from reading books on the subject? Why is it so hard to just answer my questions?

Can you actually answer any of them or are you just trolling around?

[Anonymous No.5418757]

>>5418752

So you're saying Ukert is the result of not one, but several asteroids?

Interesting, do we have experiments that gave similar results?

[Anonymous No.5418763]

>>5418757
Some Australian scientists did reproduce that in a sandbox.

[Anonymous No.5418768]

>>5418763

Nice. Any links or images?

[Anonymous No.5418787]

>>5418768
Yes, pic related.

[Anonymous No.5418796]

>>5418787

Seriously? He triforced? Do you have more? Specifically the series of strikes that gave this eventually?

This is awesome.

[Anonymous No.5418801]

>>5418757
There are many observations of other craters.
(Looking around on the moon, there are examples of crater circles broken by later impacts, of concentric impacts, and of impacts that look like they were filled in before later impacts into the soft stuff).

I don't have a link for the experimentation, but I know it has been done. I have seen video of the difficulties in finding corrollary surface material -- wet sand, dry sand, gritty sand, etc.

[Anonymous No.5418807]

Extra-terrestrials duh

[Anonymous No.5418811]

>>5418757
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/Education/websites/craters/INTRO1.HTM

[Anonymous No.5418818]

>>5418757
It's actually been quite an important thing to test; because understanding of the formation of craters means we can interpret much about the rock and strata with just pictures.
Speed matters a lot, and atmospheric density some, and neither would be known, but by comparison apparently the age can be fairly guessed.

[Anonymous No.5418836]

>>5418796
I think... you've been trolled.

Just a guess

[Anonymous No.5418838]

>>5418836

Possibly. So Ukert isn't explained.

[Anonymous No.5418869]

>>5418836
I don't know about the triforce thing but
>>5418811
> it would be a simple but effective way of photographing individual particles ejected from craters made in a wide variety of materials, from solid rock to plain old quartz sand.
> sand
looks like everyone got told, not trolled

[Anonymous No.5418892]

>>5418838

There is simply no mystery to Ukert.
It has an irregular shape; many craters do.
It could be the site of several rocks hitting from different directions into irregular strata and different velocities; they aren't even all that coincidental.
At minimum, I'd guess four impacts, maybe one large early one.

But there are much better pictures; check out
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section2b.htm

and try to see a 'triangle' in there.
There is no mysterious shaping in a picture that includes textures and a better view. Only the low-contrast, textureless, high-angle shot makes this look odd.

[Anonymous No.5418932]

>>5418892
>http://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section2b.htm

True. It doesn't have that shape anymore.

One more anomaly blown to the wind.

Why do you write in verse, though?

[Anonymous No.5419009]

>>5418716
You can get chains of impacts, it is not unusual.

[Anonymous No.5419016]

>>5418716

these are volcanoes you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.5419020]

Have you just stumbled across these OP?

[Anonymous No.5419041]

>>5419016
>you fucking retard

To think I expected more from /sci/ than I expect from /b/.

[Anonymous No.5419042]

>>5419020

No.

[Anonymous No.5419074]

>>5419041

fuck off to /x/ you superstitious piece of shit

[Anonymous No.5419075]

>craters are perfect circles
>HURRDURR THE ALIENS DID IT

[Anonymous No.5419086]

>>5419074
He might not be superstitious. If he is, why the hatred? Surely we'd all enjoy a world free from superstition, but being cruel to him ins't going to make that happen.
Who's being illogical now?

[Anonymous No.5419111]

>>5419086

I'm kind of irritated anyway

im going to bed early

[Anonymous No.5419112]

>>5419074

Superstitious? Why? Because I'm interested in what scientific-minded people have to say?

You welcome me with insults and no explanations. You belong in /x/ more than I do.

[Anonymous No.5419200]

>>5419112
You're clearly not - you're posting images, listing your own theories as to how the formations in those images were created, and then getting butthurt when people tell you otherwise.

I will admit some posters are being less than courteous but given that
1. This is 4chan
2. You guys over at /x/ tend to spam us... a lot
3. This is 4chan
That should be par for the course, and it's no excuse for all the informative, straightforward answers to your questions in this thread that have gone unreplied to

[Anonymous No.5419215]

>>5419200
>You're clearly not - you're posting images, listing your own theories as to how the formations in those images were created, and then getting butthurt when people tell you otherwise.

What? So far, all I've said was express gratefulness for the explanations given (even the trolling).

>>5418757
>>5418796
>>5418932

These are my responses to what people said.

[Anonymous No.5419232]

>>5419200

This being 4chan is no excuse for anything. Do what you want, but don't use excuses.

I wasn't aware /x/ spammed you in any way, considering they aren't very active in their own board.

I came here simply to learn. Everything else is secondary.

[Anonymous No.5419317]

>>5418932
>True. It doesn't have that shape anymore.
Those pictures aren't from very different times.
The NASA pic was from orbits, of course, and the Google shots are probably from scopes only, and at the worst times, when the light was high.

>Why do you write in verse, though?

I break my lines so others can select the parts they would respond to easily.

[Anonymous No.5419319]

>>5418932
>True. It doesn't have that shape anymore.

Let me put it this way: almost nothing on the moon changes shape.
That is why craters are visible in the first place; no erosion.

So whatever pictures you can find, they look different mostly because of the angle of light.

[Anonymous No.5419329]

>>5419317
>I break my lines so others can select the parts they would respond to easily.

Kind of you.

[Anonymous No.5419333]

>>5419319

Dude... the fuck... I wasn't implying the fucking thing itself shape-shifted!

I meant the shots were much clearer and the triangular shape proved to be a distortion from the camera and not very related to the actual crater itself.

[Anonymous No.5419360]

OP, after looking at this many times today, I still only see the Big Island of Hawaii inscribed on the darker material inside
-- no triangle, but that is definitely the Big Island.

[Anonymous No.5419383]

>>5419333
>implying
I think he meant that there is little erosion from wind ... etc

[Anonymous No.5419417]

OP not posting Saturn's Hexagon.

I just don't know what to believe anymore

[Anonymous No.5419422]

Low speed, shallow angle impacts tend to form irregular shapes since the asteroid will behave less like a large bomb releasing the energy in a circular shape and more like a kinetic impactor.

[Anonymous No.5419442]

>>5419417
It's caused by unique high pressure crystal slid formation in the lower unobservable atmosphere, essentially a massive crystal continental structure of compressed gas

[Anonymous No.5419446]

>>5419442

I have the book where that's from.

[Anonymous No.5419985]

>>5419333
>Dude... the fuck... I wasn't implying the fucking thing itself shape-shifted!

Neither did I;
but surface features change shape on most bodies, you know
Winds, water, materials pushed against it, landslides, tectonics... there are many things which change the shape.

>I meant the shots were much clearer and the triangular shape proved to be a distortion from the camera and not very related to the actual crater itself.

[Anonymous No.5420130]

something strange on the right

[Anonymous No.5420278]

>>5420130
Lower left, the whitish shiny bit?

[Anonymous No.5420299]

>>5420278

[Anonymous No.5420303]

>>5420299
pic fail upload

[Anonymous No.5420345]

>>5420303
Hmm... I guess I don't know enough mineralogy (no surprise). The only thing I see there is what looks like a deposition layer in the pebble, like quartz in a granite composite.

The bit in lower left, though, appears cleaner and more irregular than a pebble and has formations that remind me of popcorn.

[Anonymous No.5420475]

>>5420303

Seashells. Mars had seas.

[Anonymous No.5421082]

>>5420475

but . this thought is too fantastic and not pc.

[Anonymous No.5421096]

>>5421082

I would have said 'silly.'

It's as though he automatically assumed having water meant having seashell animal life, and so obviously having water meant finding shells.

[Anonymous No.5421555]

cylindric pipe

[Anonymous No.5421558]

closer look on the cylindric pipe

[Anonymous No.5421594]

>>5421558
it's a rock

[Anonymous No.5421615]

>>5421594
No way, Mario's gonna come out of that sucker any minute.

[Anonymous No.5421703]

>>5421555
>>5421558

Now that's what I'm talking about! Keep'em coming.

[Anonymous No.5421704]

>>5421615

[Anonymous No.5421731]

We're trying to get a good /x/ thread going; join if you want good stuff on /x/.

[Anonymous No.5422207]

>>5418716

Debris/asteroids sharing an orbit, breaking up before landing and crashing in line with each other.

Small asteroids are known to be clumps of larger objects.

Idk, I didn't watch it happen.

[Anonymous No.5422217]

>>5418660

[Anonymous No.5422230]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5422244]

>>5421704
>>5421615
12yo itt

[Anonymous No.5422468]

>>5422244

I was around 5 when Mario started coming out of pipes, that was in 1987.

I'm not 12...

[Anonymous No.5424105]

>>5422468
pity you didnt grow up

[Anonymous No.5424109]

>>5424105
Ah, it's the Juvenile-Man, come to the rescue!

He will save all seriose discussion for the seriose cat!

A legend in his own mind! Faster than a speeding imagination! Stronger than a a fundamentalist christian post!

[Anonymous No.5424379]

>>5424105

...because I remember and know Mario?

For a grown up, you write like a child, and your "burns" are pathetic.

Get to my level. Or any of the 29 levels underneath.

[Anonymous No.5426677]

>>>/pol/9068331