quote:
Yes, [comet Shoemaker-Levy 9] would've created a hole in the ground, but I'm not certain that it would resemble a crater.
Why not? Why should I go with "I'm not certain"? Craters are consitent with meteor impacts, including shocked quartz and tektites, not to mention the layer of irridium found world wide in the case of the meteor impact from 65 MYA.
Also, some craters are up to 300 km in diameter. How can an electrical discharge create such a large crater? Why hypothesize eletricity when rocks large enough to do the job intersect earth's orbit even now?
quote:
I'm no chemical expert, but if you have an electrical discharge big enough to burn a hole that size, is there any chance that that would create iridium?
As JonF said, the answer is no. The formation of any element from other elements requires extremely high pressures like that found in stars. Iridium can be produced in supernovae, but not due to eletrical discharges.
quote:
In fact, according to the electric universe model, the lights observed on Io is electrical discharge, not volcanos.
And have we observed these eletrical forces causing craters?
The site you linked to is full of bunk. For instance:
Wal Thornhill proposes that the Valles Marineris scar on Mars may well have been made by an electrical discharge, and that the Grand Canyon in Arizona could have been formed in the same manner. The origin of the Grand Canyon has long been in controversy, and geologists are presently rethinking their long-held theories in this area.
The formation of the Grand Canyon was due to water erosion, and no geologist doubts this (except for a few creationist extremists). There is no controversy. How can this site be taken seriously when it spreads untruths like this?
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2005 14:17 AM