Shane Mage wrote: > electrical discharge provides a far more plausible explanation than > mechanical impact for the patterns of cratering that repeat themselves on the > surfaces of planets, moons, comets, and even tiny asteroids.<
there are large numbers of very small rocks flying around in space. Don't they explain the cratering on larger rocks pretty well? and when the larger rocks hit even larger rocks, doesn't that cause cratering, too? why is that implausible? It's possible that _some_ craters were caused by electrical discharge, but why should we think that _all_ cratering resulted in that way? why can't we say that some cratering is due to flying rocks and some due to electrical discharge? why does it have to be either/or? couldn't it be more like 95% for flying rocks and 5% for electricity? BTW, is there any evidence backing the idea that lightning struck the Moon, creating craters there? there _is_ evidence for flying rocks causing craters. For example, drop a penny off the Empire State Building's peak and see what happens. -- Jim Devine / "The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous." -- Naomi Klein.
