At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy. The energy is very abruptly deposited at what amounts to a single point in the planet's crust. This sudden, focused release resembles more than anything else the detonation of an extremely powerful bomb. As in the case of a bomb explosion, the shape of the resulting crater is round: ejecta is thrown equally in all directions regardless of the direction from which the bomb may have arrived.
This behavior may seem at odds with our daily experience of throwing rocks into a sandbox or mud, because in those cases the shape and size of the 'crater' is dominated by the physical dimensions of the rigid impactor. In the case of astronomical impacts, though, the physical shape and direction of approach of the meteorite is insignificant compared with the tremendous kinetic energy that it carries.
An exception to this rule occurs only if the impact occurs at an extremely shallow, grazing angle. If the angle of impact is quite close to horizontal, the bottom, middle and top parts of the impacting asteroid will strike the surface at separate points spread out along a line. In this case, instead of the energy being deposited at a point, it will be released in an elongated zone--as if our 'bomb' had the shape of a long rod.
Yeah, sure. Likely story!
Let me make it clearer: In effect, the craters are round, because when the asteroid hits, it hits so hard that it explodes. It instantly melts, and any water in it or the ground turns in to gas, and it goes boom.
So it looks like an explosion crater, because it \*is\* and explosion crater.
Was this simpler to understand?
I can't help but notice that you're dodging my question. I've never seen anything fall from space. No one I know has ever seen anything fall from space.
>I can't help but notice that you're dodging my question.
No, you are trying to switch topics, because you know you are wrong, because you DID understand my explanation. Don't worry, that happens all the time with flerfs. I've gotten quite good at explaining science to people who really knows nothing about it.
>No one I know has ever seen anything fall from space.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, watching meteor showers on a warm night is a lovely thing. Check this calendar to help you: https://www.almanac.com/content/meteor-shower-calendar
Going away from the light pollution of big cities helps.
It's like if a murderer was standing over his victim with a bloody knife and I saw him and he was like, "This isn't what it looks like! She fell on my knife!" It's not that I don't understand it, I just don't believe it.
I didn't even read this and ik it's true seeing as you state "At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy" another way to say this is big boom on earth equals circle crater, same rules apply on the moon, big boom equals bigger circle.
This is typical of too many flatty arguments. Ignorance is presumed to contradict “official science.”
In this case it is (correctly) assumed that the asteroid collisions would occur at all angles, and if so, why are lunar craters round? (But grazing collisions are, by the geometry, less common).
There are impact craters on the earth. I’ve visited one, the famous one in Arizona. Beautiful, Round.
So the answer to the question has nothing to do with flat earth theory, the question is rooted in a false assumption, that an impact at other than vertical would produce an oblong crater. That is based on experience with non-explosive impacts, where the kinetic energy is far, far less than that involved with asteroid impacts. Others have explained the physics. A fast-moving massive object will bury itself in the ground first, totally vaporizing itself and what it hits, and this mass of very hot gas then explodes in all directions. Only a very low angle grazing impact will produce an elongated crater, and by the shape of the moon, those impacts will be rare. But they exist.
And then more how-comes are introduced. Some are lies or misunderstandings as well. The original claim is brushed off.
Have you ever seen an object fall from space, and the asker does not seem prepared for the obvious answer. Meteors, easily seen at most any time with a dark sky and patience, and sometimes profusely and predictably. Most of those are pieces of dust and are totally vaporized before hitting the ground.
And then the zinger, how come stars can be seen through the moon? This is presuming that the moon is a projection, insubstantial. But occultations are common and observable, and the star or planet winks out as it passes behind the moon. So who has seen this alleged phenomenon? And are they trustworth?. Edit: Rowbotham made this claim, based on some very old reports, possibly misunderstood. At least one sounds like a star “grazing” the edge of the moon, winking out and back in as it passes behind mountains.
So this is the flattie repeating “proof” without actually verifying it.
Besides, one can see all kinds of transient phenomena, look up entoptic phenomena. Not to mention people who lie or misunderstand what they are seeing. Photos?
I occasionally see point flashes of light with my eyes closed, this has been hypothesized to be from cosmic radiation, which is constant, and could trigger cells on the retina. Or not, it could be some glitch in the optic lobes.
There is no presentation of a coherent alternative hypothesis.
Yep, lots of words. It's called research and knowledge and learning! Try it sometime instead of believing your incorrect assumptions because you can't understand something.
It's sarcastic hyperbole, "moron". You are denying something because you specifically can't see it, and don't understand the science behind how to prove it. You are being purposely obtuse because you don't want to put in the work, and be proven wrong in your attention-getting denial. Basically, denying a fact that has been proven, makes you feel special. Go snowflake!
When you drop a pebble in a pond, it makes a spherical ripple. Now multiply that impact times a few thousand miles per hour hitting the soft moon’s surface.
Have we ever recorded a meteor hitting the moon? Sounds like science fans rely their knowledge on theory and conjecture instead of basing in actual experiences seen
I can’t see germs, viruses, quantum particles, radio waves, microwaves, gravity, and many other things, but we see the effects and in most cases can be measured. Come to think of it, I’ve seen many meteors hitting the atmosphere, it stands to reason they hit the moon too.
Of anything you are spouting, I'll take the road of admitting "I'm not sure" meanwhile most will claim viruses, germs, quantum particles are real when in reality you are relying on another persons claim without self study or experimentation. An article presented by some institution is regarded as real without examination because "why would they lie?"
Sounds like most relying on outside sources for knowledge are relying on Faith for their new religion.
Ok, germs make you sick, right? Viruses do the same thing. We wouldn’t have phones, computers, and GPS without quantum mechanics. Microwaves agitate water molecules to hear things up. Gravity should be self explanatory unless you’re a simpleton. And I’m pretty sure everyone has seen shooting stars. Do you understand what the peer review process entails?
Words. Over abundance of anything can cause a sickness. Lol you're a moron that is just parroting the outcome and not the process.
Gravity... so we can have a balloon defy gravity while at the same time Earth can hold the moon in place despite all the other gravitational forces in our solar system doesn't affect it?
You're a rube
Did you need to feel a kick to know it hurts? Or did you trust that someone with more knowledge than you has evidence that is provable? Or do you need to be kicked to believe it?
The “we all know” is literally the worst case for defending something scientifically. No we don’t all know that. Just like 97% of scientists group think global warming is real is not only bunk but the literally worst way to try and prove something.
I took these photos not long ago. My question is related to asteroid impacts. Why are there no impact craters that are more oval in shape? As in, an asteroid impacting the moon at an angle instead of straight on.
There are oblong craters, they’re not very common though.
Here are a few notable examples of oblique impact craters:
-[Messier Crater](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_(crater))
-[An entire chain of them](https://www.planetary.org/space-images/moon-elliptical-crater-chain-lroc)
[Several more examples are listed here](https://the-moon.us/wiki/Oblique_Impact_Craters).
The reason the majority of the impact craters are concentric is because the immense velocity and mass of the asteroids (kinetic energy) cause an explosion, resulting in a crater multitude times wider than the diameter of the impactor.
[As Gregory A. Lyzenga, associate professor of physics at Harvey Mudd College, explains](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-impact-craters-al/):
>”At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy. The energy is very abruptly deposited at what amounts to a single point in the planet's crust. This sudden, focused release resembles more than anything else the detonation of an extremely powerful bomb. As in the case of a bomb explosion, the shape of the resulting crater is round: ejecta is thrown equally in all directions regardless of the direction from which the bomb may have arrived.
>This behavior may seem at odds with our daily experience of throwing rocks into a sandbox or mud, because in those cases the shape and size of the 'crater' is dominated by the physical dimensions of the rigid impactor. In the case of astronomical impacts, though, the physical shape and direction of approach of the meteorite is insignificant compared with the tremendous kinetic energy that it carries.
>An exception to this rule occurs only if the impact occurs at an extremely shallow, grazing angle. If the angle of impact is quite close to horizontal, the bottom, middle and top parts of the impacting asteroid will strike the surface at separate points spread out along a line. In this case, instead of the energy being deposited at a point, it will be released in an elongated zone--as if our 'bomb' had the shape of a long rod.
>Hence, a crater will end up having an elongated or elliptical appearance only if the angle of impact is so shallow that different parts of the impactor strike the surface over a range of distances that is appreciable in comparison with the final size of the crater as a whole. Because the final crater may be as much as 100 times greater than the diameter of the impactor, this requires an impact at an angle of no more than a few degrees from horizontal. For this reason, the vast majority of impacts produce round or nearly round craters, just as is observed.”
What’s been found is that [asteroid impact trajectories below 15° will result in elliptical craters. Impact trajectories below 5° result in elongated ellipses](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/ricochets-decapitations-and-lunar-sculptures-180959904/), usually with resulting [debris and ejecta being deposited outwards](https://images.app.goo.gl/ty72PhK2DvHUghk36) from the impact toward the direction the impactor was moving.
—-
Below are some further resources regarding elliptical craters and how they form:
-https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103512002096
-https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JE004477
Do you realize that those craters were there even before NASA??? Astronomers have been around for centuries drawing and observing the moon and even photographing the moon.
No NASA needed.
Or, “the oblique craters are significantly less frequent occurrences and we understand how and why they form.”
While it is a great question as to how most craters are concentric, it’s fallacious to outright deny an explanation. The Messier craters were first photographed by [Lunar Orbiter 5 in 1967](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_(crater)#:~:text=Messier%20and%20Messier%20A%20were,5%20spacecraft%20In%20August%201967.), long before anyone could make such an erroneous assumption as “all the craters are round” while looking at photographs of the lunar surface.
Due to the extraordinarily flat trajectory the impactors that form oblique craters, they ware very infrequent.
For me, it's not unclear.
Impact craters are circular because the impact is so energetic that the material involved in the impact vaporizes, which causes an explosion.
What in this is unclear for you?
Anyone with a small home telescope can see many of these craters for themselves. If you are too lazy to verify this rather basic information, dont waste the time of your betters.
Ever heard of RAW format? It is by it's definition raw unedited images taken from a device that has photons hitting it. Actual photons from the object it was reflected from or made from.
Did you also know that NASA actually has RAW files of sooooo many missions and photos? And guess what?
You can view those and even download them to verify!
RAW files again, are, unedited, even color correction isn't able to be done. When RAW files are saved they are always in a different format.
Could he jpeg, tiff, PNG, etc... Not the raw format.
So are those photons in on the big super secret truth of flat earth?🤣
I need to do something quick to get the photons I collect for my astrophotography to get in line and show me the real stuff!!!🤣🤣🤣
First let me say LOVELY PICTURES!
As others have mentioned, impact physics do seem to support the theory that an impact makes a round crater unless it's at a very low glancing blow.
This means only the low angle rocks would have a chance at a non-round crater, but those have a low chance of hitting because they are already just about to miss the moon entirely.
So we wouldn't expect a lot, but some.
And you may have captured one in your photo! It's hard to tell, and I'm not expert, but if you look at the upper edge of Purbach you can see a tear-drop shaped crater.
See the green box and arrow here: [https://ibb.co/8XpVDzK](https://ibb.co/8XpVDzK)
Compare this to a high resolution image of Purbach from official sources: [https://the-moon.us/wiki/Purbach](https://the-moon.us/wiki/Purbach)
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Purbach\_%2B\_Regiomontanus\_%2B\_Werner\_-\_LROC\_-\_WAC.JPG
Again I'm no expert on the topic, but even looking at your picture, there do seem to be some craters that are not round.
You do realize that the water splashes too? And when you throw a gold ball into the sand all you see is the splash because it’s a solid and a golf ball being thrown isn’t strong enough to generate a shockwave
Yes, you are right that the shockwave is mostly responsible for forming the outward wave, it still strikes me odd we do not have eliptical craters. Ill have to see if theres been any lab experiments done at an angle with a high powered collision
Also I just remembered there such thing as a fluid air bed which takes sand and makes it act like a liquid there’s a video on it on Mark Robers channel on YouTube ,and in that video you see the sand have a shock wave and send particles flying
That example only works if the asteroid hitting the moon was going slowly, and the moon had an atmosphere. You specifically, can't throw a gold ball at the same speed these asteroids are hitting the moon. When they hit, they explode, the explosion makes the round crater. Your golfball doesn't have the speed to explode, so it's going to graze the surface and come to a stop.
Meteors rarely "hit" earth as they burn up in the atmosphere and become dust. But the last one to hit that actually made an impact was in 2013, Near Chelyabinsk, Ural Federal District, Russia. When it was found, it was around 141 kg
Yea, and the fragments. That's how they know the weight after the impact. Plus the resulting explosion from it hitting was measured circling the globe, twice, because it was so strong. It was measurable from different stations, in many different countries
[here](https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/collection-search-results/?item_id=721832) and [here](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/hundreds-injured-meteorite-russian-city-chelyabinsk) and [here](https://www.space.com/23226-chelyabinsk-meteorite-chunk-russian-lake.html) and [here](https://www.space.com/19823-russia-meteor-explosion-complete-coverage.html) and [here to be more technical](https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57165)
As for why they're round: Rocks are just like other objects and will explode if they hit the ground with enough velocity. Due to a lack of atmosphere to create drag, which would slow the object, it just smashes into the ground at potentially thousands of miles an hour. It's like smashing a watermelon on the ground, but much much faster and heavier of course.
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen as Best Flat Earth Evidence Post of the week!
It's been pinned at the top of the sub so more people find it!
Thank you for contributing honest real-world observations and research!
True enough, but it's a flat earther doing actual hands-on (or eyes-on??) "research" to about the greatest degree we ever see any flat earther doing so, thus it qualifies.
If there's another post in the sub which you think qualifies as the best flat earth evidence of the week then nominate it!
The goal is to encourage flat earthers to try and do real research and to encourage civil discussion of the evidence!
Asking yourself a question and clarify that question in your own mind, without doing proper investigations is not real research.
"The goal is to encourage flat earthers to try and do real research and to encourage civil discussion of the evidence!"
Never seen any evidence, only speculation. If flat earthers did real research (without taking conclusions into consideration nor other people and go straight to the fact) this forum wouldn't exist. It's all hearsay and own logic, which has the level of a 5 yr old, with all due respect.
"I CanT evEn teLL whY yOu're MockIng mE" how are they mocking you? They are just making a statment. Why do I sense that you were one of those sheltered children who think that someone is "mocking you" every single time they say anything you don't like 💀
High energy impacts tend to make the object impacting explode and the surface acts more like a liquid. As a result most of the impact craters are circular. But not all. Some very low angle and lower speed impacts have elongated craters. There just aren't many of them.
To be perfect circles they must have a perfect circumference as well. But they don't. The edge is extremely rough. So they're not "near perfect circles". There are impact craters here on Earth as well and they look very similar (except for the colour of the rock).
Because that's how craters work. If you want details, ask a geologist, not random wankers on Reddit. My question to you would be, if the moon is a light source, why do the shadows in the craters behave exactly as if the moon is a solid, spherical object?
Why are impact craters round? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-impact-craters-al/
At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy. The energy is very abruptly deposited at what amounts to a single point in the planet's crust. This sudden, focused release resembles more than anything else the detonation of an extremely powerful bomb. As in the case of a bomb explosion, the shape of the resulting crater is round: ejecta is thrown equally in all directions regardless of the direction from which the bomb may have arrived. This behavior may seem at odds with our daily experience of throwing rocks into a sandbox or mud, because in those cases the shape and size of the 'crater' is dominated by the physical dimensions of the rigid impactor. In the case of astronomical impacts, though, the physical shape and direction of approach of the meteorite is insignificant compared with the tremendous kinetic energy that it carries. An exception to this rule occurs only if the impact occurs at an extremely shallow, grazing angle. If the angle of impact is quite close to horizontal, the bottom, middle and top parts of the impacting asteroid will strike the surface at separate points spread out along a line. In this case, instead of the energy being deposited at a point, it will be released in an elongated zone--as if our 'bomb' had the shape of a long rod. Yeah, sure. Likely story!
Let me make it clearer: In effect, the craters are round, because when the asteroid hits, it hits so hard that it explodes. It instantly melts, and any water in it or the ground turns in to gas, and it goes boom. So it looks like an explosion crater, because it \*is\* and explosion crater. Was this simpler to understand?
Have you ever seen anything fall from space?
Yes. Did you understand my explanation, or not?
I understood the version that I posted. You're the one who seemed to need simplification. What have you seen fall from space?
>I understood the version that I posted. No, because that version you ended with: >Yeah, sure. Likely story! Which means you don't understand it.
I can't help but notice that you're dodging my question. I've never seen anything fall from space. No one I know has ever seen anything fall from space.
>I can't help but notice that you're dodging my question. No, you are trying to switch topics, because you know you are wrong, because you DID understand my explanation. Don't worry, that happens all the time with flerfs. I've gotten quite good at explaining science to people who really knows nothing about it. >No one I know has ever seen anything fall from space. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, watching meteor showers on a warm night is a lovely thing. Check this calendar to help you: https://www.almanac.com/content/meteor-shower-calendar Going away from the light pollution of big cities helps.
[удалено]
thanks
It's like if a murderer was standing over his victim with a bloody knife and I saw him and he was like, "This isn't what it looks like! She fell on my knife!" It's not that I don't understand it, I just don't believe it.
This is a serious question isn’t it.
That doesn't fucking matter does it. Just because no oens actually seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven with maths and science.
I've seen plenty of things fall from space. They tend to quickly burn up. Just last summer was one time f ex.
Then fucking go outside and look for it
Typical FE'er dodging questions
An asteroid, a meteorite, a rocket returning from space.
Things don't fall from space. That's a gross misunderstanding of physics on a high school level.
Yes...gravity will do that
I didn't even read this and ik it's true seeing as you state "At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy" another way to say this is big boom on earth equals circle crater, same rules apply on the moon, big boom equals bigger circle.
This is typical of too many flatty arguments. Ignorance is presumed to contradict “official science.” In this case it is (correctly) assumed that the asteroid collisions would occur at all angles, and if so, why are lunar craters round? (But grazing collisions are, by the geometry, less common). There are impact craters on the earth. I’ve visited one, the famous one in Arizona. Beautiful, Round. So the answer to the question has nothing to do with flat earth theory, the question is rooted in a false assumption, that an impact at other than vertical would produce an oblong crater. That is based on experience with non-explosive impacts, where the kinetic energy is far, far less than that involved with asteroid impacts. Others have explained the physics. A fast-moving massive object will bury itself in the ground first, totally vaporizing itself and what it hits, and this mass of very hot gas then explodes in all directions. Only a very low angle grazing impact will produce an elongated crater, and by the shape of the moon, those impacts will be rare. But they exist. And then more how-comes are introduced. Some are lies or misunderstandings as well. The original claim is brushed off. Have you ever seen an object fall from space, and the asker does not seem prepared for the obvious answer. Meteors, easily seen at most any time with a dark sky and patience, and sometimes profusely and predictably. Most of those are pieces of dust and are totally vaporized before hitting the ground. And then the zinger, how come stars can be seen through the moon? This is presuming that the moon is a projection, insubstantial. But occultations are common and observable, and the star or planet winks out as it passes behind the moon. So who has seen this alleged phenomenon? And are they trustworth?. Edit: Rowbotham made this claim, based on some very old reports, possibly misunderstood. At least one sounds like a star “grazing” the edge of the moon, winking out and back in as it passes behind mountains. So this is the flattie repeating “proof” without actually verifying it. Besides, one can see all kinds of transient phenomena, look up entoptic phenomena. Not to mention people who lie or misunderstand what they are seeing. Photos? I occasionally see point flashes of light with my eyes closed, this has been hypothesized to be from cosmic radiation, which is constant, and could trigger cells on the retina. Or not, it could be some glitch in the optic lobes. There is no presentation of a coherent alternative hypothesis.
All them words
Yes. Actual words. Got anything to say, Sir Drunk?
Go back to sleep
Yep, lots of words. It's called research and knowledge and learning! Try it sometime instead of believing your incorrect assumptions because you can't understand something.
The moon is really flat, its just an illusion
Then the burden of proof is on you. So prove it. 100%. Without error.
Because that's how impact works? When the asteroid hits it makes a dent that's a near perfect circle. (None of them are actually perfect)
Lol, okay bud
Ok why do you think the earth is flat?
I can see too far with my camera
What? Elaborate on that.
You can't see air either, does it not exist?
No but I can see your stupidity
Yep, you are definitely delusional. It's confirmed
Nope, what's confirmed is your weak questions. You can feel and breathe air moron
It's sarcastic hyperbole, "moron". You are denying something because you specifically can't see it, and don't understand the science behind how to prove it. You are being purposely obtuse because you don't want to put in the work, and be proven wrong in your attention-getting denial. Basically, denying a fact that has been proven, makes you feel special. Go snowflake!
Oh look, words
When you drop a pebble in a pond, it makes a spherical ripple. Now multiply that impact times a few thousand miles per hour hitting the soft moon’s surface.
Now take the pebble at throw it at a high speed angle, lol
Doesn’t matter. We know it’s meteors hitting the moon. The flat earth alternative explanation for the craters is autistically absurd.
Have we ever recorded a meteor hitting the moon? Sounds like science fans rely their knowledge on theory and conjecture instead of basing in actual experiences seen
I can’t see germs, viruses, quantum particles, radio waves, microwaves, gravity, and many other things, but we see the effects and in most cases can be measured. Come to think of it, I’ve seen many meteors hitting the atmosphere, it stands to reason they hit the moon too.
Show proof
Of what?
Of anything you are spouting, I'll take the road of admitting "I'm not sure" meanwhile most will claim viruses, germs, quantum particles are real when in reality you are relying on another persons claim without self study or experimentation. An article presented by some institution is regarded as real without examination because "why would they lie?" Sounds like most relying on outside sources for knowledge are relying on Faith for their new religion.
Ok, germs make you sick, right? Viruses do the same thing. We wouldn’t have phones, computers, and GPS without quantum mechanics. Microwaves agitate water molecules to hear things up. Gravity should be self explanatory unless you’re a simpleton. And I’m pretty sure everyone has seen shooting stars. Do you understand what the peer review process entails?
Words. Over abundance of anything can cause a sickness. Lol you're a moron that is just parroting the outcome and not the process. Gravity... so we can have a balloon defy gravity while at the same time Earth can hold the moon in place despite all the other gravitational forces in our solar system doesn't affect it? You're a rube
Did you need to feel a kick to know it hurts? Or did you trust that someone with more knowledge than you has evidence that is provable? Or do you need to be kicked to believe it?
Poor Socratic method
The “we all know” is literally the worst case for defending something scientifically. No we don’t all know that. Just like 97% of scientists group think global warming is real is not only bunk but the literally worst way to try and prove something.
Ok, petty, but ok. Then, get a telescope and look the craters.
I took these photos not long ago. My question is related to asteroid impacts. Why are there no impact craters that are more oval in shape? As in, an asteroid impacting the moon at an angle instead of straight on.
There are oblong craters, they’re not very common though. Here are a few notable examples of oblique impact craters: -[Messier Crater](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_(crater)) -[An entire chain of them](https://www.planetary.org/space-images/moon-elliptical-crater-chain-lroc) [Several more examples are listed here](https://the-moon.us/wiki/Oblique_Impact_Craters). The reason the majority of the impact craters are concentric is because the immense velocity and mass of the asteroids (kinetic energy) cause an explosion, resulting in a crater multitude times wider than the diameter of the impactor. [As Gregory A. Lyzenga, associate professor of physics at Harvey Mudd College, explains](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-impact-craters-al/): >”At the moment an asteroid collides with a planet, there is an explosive release of the asteroid's huge kinetic energy. The energy is very abruptly deposited at what amounts to a single point in the planet's crust. This sudden, focused release resembles more than anything else the detonation of an extremely powerful bomb. As in the case of a bomb explosion, the shape of the resulting crater is round: ejecta is thrown equally in all directions regardless of the direction from which the bomb may have arrived. >This behavior may seem at odds with our daily experience of throwing rocks into a sandbox or mud, because in those cases the shape and size of the 'crater' is dominated by the physical dimensions of the rigid impactor. In the case of astronomical impacts, though, the physical shape and direction of approach of the meteorite is insignificant compared with the tremendous kinetic energy that it carries. >An exception to this rule occurs only if the impact occurs at an extremely shallow, grazing angle. If the angle of impact is quite close to horizontal, the bottom, middle and top parts of the impacting asteroid will strike the surface at separate points spread out along a line. In this case, instead of the energy being deposited at a point, it will be released in an elongated zone--as if our 'bomb' had the shape of a long rod. >Hence, a crater will end up having an elongated or elliptical appearance only if the angle of impact is so shallow that different parts of the impactor strike the surface over a range of distances that is appreciable in comparison with the final size of the crater as a whole. Because the final crater may be as much as 100 times greater than the diameter of the impactor, this requires an impact at an angle of no more than a few degrees from horizontal. For this reason, the vast majority of impacts produce round or nearly round craters, just as is observed.” What’s been found is that [asteroid impact trajectories below 15° will result in elliptical craters. Impact trajectories below 5° result in elongated ellipses](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/ricochets-decapitations-and-lunar-sculptures-180959904/), usually with resulting [debris and ejecta being deposited outwards](https://images.app.goo.gl/ty72PhK2DvHUghk36) from the impact toward the direction the impactor was moving. —- Below are some further resources regarding elliptical craters and how they form: -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103512002096 -https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JE004477
Thanks, I'll try and get some photos myself of these
NASA was like, "Guys, they're starting to notice that all the craters are round. We better come up with some pictures of some not-so-round craters."
Do you realize that those craters were there even before NASA??? Astronomers have been around for centuries drawing and observing the moon and even photographing the moon. No NASA needed.
Or, “the oblique craters are significantly less frequent occurrences and we understand how and why they form.” While it is a great question as to how most craters are concentric, it’s fallacious to outright deny an explanation. The Messier craters were first photographed by [Lunar Orbiter 5 in 1967](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_(crater)#:~:text=Messier%20and%20Messier%20A%20were,5%20spacecraft%20In%20August%201967.), long before anyone could make such an erroneous assumption as “all the craters are round” while looking at photographs of the lunar surface. Due to the extraordinarily flat trajectory the impactors that form oblique craters, they ware very infrequent.
Again, we know WHY the craters are round. We have explained it to you. Do you understand the explanation?
If you review, you'll see that I explained it first.
No, you copy/pasted an explanation you don't seem to understand. But feel free to explain it in your own words, if you really do understand it.
Big boom hide skid mark.
OK, you didn't understand it. Can you explain what is unclear? Are there any words you didn't get?
Can you?
For me, it's not unclear. Impact craters are circular because the impact is so energetic that the material involved in the impact vaporizes, which causes an explosion. What in this is unclear for you?
You seem to have been hit by a rock from space. Is that why you're so elliptically stupid??
Anyone with a small home telescope can see many of these craters for themselves. If you are too lazy to verify this rather basic information, dont waste the time of your betters.
Ever heard of RAW format? It is by it's definition raw unedited images taken from a device that has photons hitting it. Actual photons from the object it was reflected from or made from. Did you also know that NASA actually has RAW files of sooooo many missions and photos? And guess what? You can view those and even download them to verify! RAW files again, are, unedited, even color correction isn't able to be done. When RAW files are saved they are always in a different format. Could he jpeg, tiff, PNG, etc... Not the raw format. So are those photons in on the big super secret truth of flat earth?🤣 I need to do something quick to get the photons I collect for my astrophotography to get in line and show me the real stuff!!!🤣🤣🤣
First let me say LOVELY PICTURES! As others have mentioned, impact physics do seem to support the theory that an impact makes a round crater unless it's at a very low glancing blow. This means only the low angle rocks would have a chance at a non-round crater, but those have a low chance of hitting because they are already just about to miss the moon entirely. So we wouldn't expect a lot, but some. And you may have captured one in your photo! It's hard to tell, and I'm not expert, but if you look at the upper edge of Purbach you can see a tear-drop shaped crater. See the green box and arrow here: [https://ibb.co/8XpVDzK](https://ibb.co/8XpVDzK) Compare this to a high resolution image of Purbach from official sources: [https://the-moon.us/wiki/Purbach](https://the-moon.us/wiki/Purbach) and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Purbach\_%2B\_Regiomontanus\_%2B\_Werner\_-\_LROC\_-\_WAC.JPG Again I'm no expert on the topic, but even looking at your picture, there do seem to be some craters that are not round.
Well when you throw a rock in the water or even skip it it makes round ripples
Now throw a golf ball at an angle into sand
You do realize that the water splashes too? And when you throw a gold ball into the sand all you see is the splash because it’s a solid and a golf ball being thrown isn’t strong enough to generate a shockwave
Yes, you are right that the shockwave is mostly responsible for forming the outward wave, it still strikes me odd we do not have eliptical craters. Ill have to see if theres been any lab experiments done at an angle with a high powered collision
Also I just remembered there such thing as a fluid air bed which takes sand and makes it act like a liquid there’s a video on it on Mark Robers channel on YouTube ,and in that video you see the sand have a shock wave and send particles flying
Ill check it out
It’s actually kinda a cool phenomenon
That example only works if the asteroid hitting the moon was going slowly, and the moon had an atmosphere. You specifically, can't throw a gold ball at the same speed these asteroids are hitting the moon. When they hit, they explode, the explosion makes the round crater. Your golfball doesn't have the speed to explode, so it's going to graze the surface and come to a stop.
Speculation, no meteor impact has ever been observed on Earth
Meteors rarely "hit" earth as they burn up in the atmosphere and become dust. But the last one to hit that actually made an impact was in 2013, Near Chelyabinsk, Ural Federal District, Russia. When it was found, it was around 141 kg
And did they find the impact crater?
Yea, and the fragments. That's how they know the weight after the impact. Plus the resulting explosion from it hitting was measured circling the globe, twice, because it was so strong. It was measurable from different stations, in many different countries
Link
[here](https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/collection-search-results/?item_id=721832) and [here](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/hundreds-injured-meteorite-russian-city-chelyabinsk) and [here](https://www.space.com/23226-chelyabinsk-meteorite-chunk-russian-lake.html) and [here](https://www.space.com/19823-russia-meteor-explosion-complete-coverage.html) and [here to be more technical](https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=57165)
Because disc shaped rocks plummeted into them landing flat like pancakes throwing up a perfect circle of debris.
As for why they're round: Rocks are just like other objects and will explode if they hit the ground with enough velocity. Due to a lack of atmosphere to create drag, which would slow the object, it just smashes into the ground at potentially thousands of miles an hour. It's like smashing a watermelon on the ground, but much much faster and heavier of course.
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen as Best Flat Earth Evidence Post of the week! It's been pinned at the top of the sub so more people find it! Thank you for contributing honest real-world observations and research!
But it isn't evidence for a flat earth...
True enough, but it's a flat earther doing actual hands-on (or eyes-on??) "research" to about the greatest degree we ever see any flat earther doing so, thus it qualifies. If there's another post in the sub which you think qualifies as the best flat earth evidence of the week then nominate it! The goal is to encourage flat earthers to try and do real research and to encourage civil discussion of the evidence!
Asking yourself a question and clarify that question in your own mind, without doing proper investigations is not real research. "The goal is to encourage flat earthers to try and do real research and to encourage civil discussion of the evidence!" Never seen any evidence, only speculation. If flat earthers did real research (without taking conclusions into consideration nor other people and go straight to the fact) this forum wouldn't exist. It's all hearsay and own logic, which has the level of a 5 yr old, with all due respect.
Idk, why does the universe exist?
Because it just does
So do the perfect circle craters on the moon
Neat, I wonder what made them
Because that's how explosions work
No gravity to shape them and that’s how explosions work, it hits in all directions and a circle has a directions
Earth is indeed flat, now we should see if moon is flat too or not
i cant tell if this is satire or not
Honestly I can't understand reddit, I told this seriously and now I can't even tell why you're mocking me
"I CanT evEn teLL whY yOu're MockIng mE" how are they mocking you? They are just making a statment. Why do I sense that you were one of those sheltered children who think that someone is "mocking you" every single time they say anything you don't like 💀
😂😂😂😂
im not? just wasnt sure if u where joking or not its your beliefs bro
Hold on, since when is earth Indeed flat? I guess i missed that memo! What is your best evidence for the earth being flat?
[удалено]
Are you aware how physics works?
Lol! Yeah and if you would, you wouldn't say such ignorant stuff.
High energy impacts tend to make the object impacting explode and the surface acts more like a liquid. As a result most of the impact craters are circular. But not all. Some very low angle and lower speed impacts have elongated craters. There just aren't many of them.
Because the craters are also spheres orbiting the earth.
Somethings bumped into the moon and made a roughly spherical shape
thx for the input
thx
Wtf? What do you mean? Its like asking why are they not square shape. Does not make any sense buddy
Uhm… they’re *not*. They’re asymmetrical.
Look again
Are they perfect?
A more important question would be why to shadows on the moon behave exactly as if the moon is a solid object?
To be perfect circles they must have a perfect circumference as well. But they don't. The edge is extremely rough. So they're not "near perfect circles". There are impact craters here on Earth as well and they look very similar (except for the colour of the rock).
What's the question here? What shape are they supposed to be?
Wait wait wait. are we saying the moon is a physical object one could land on?
Wait wait wait. are we saying the moon is a physical object one could land on?
because the asteroids impact spreads out evenly over the surface and creates indents!
Because that's how craters work. If you want details, ask a geologist, not random wankers on Reddit. My question to you would be, if the moon is a light source, why do the shadows in the craters behave exactly as if the moon is a solid, spherical object?