richat structure/eye of Sahara

[Ack-Ack]

Electric Universe proponents consider the circularity of the Richat Structure to be predictable and claim that craters like the Richat were not formed by impacts but were "machined" by electric discharges, Birkeland currents that rotate around a "sticking" point and excavate material by electrically accelerating it upwards without disturbing the surrounding or underlying strata, unless the whole area is raised in a fulgamite blister--hence Rampart Craters.

Though I am of the opinion that the layered sedimentary rock of the Richat structure was caused by uplifted rock sculpted by erosion.  I think the absence of shock-altered rocks or lack of a dome of igneous rocks eliminates an impact crater or volcanic eruption as the cause.


ack-ack

[Masherbrum]

Hasnt everyone? You are aware of the work of Hurley on anticline erosion patterns and his dispute of anticline erosions EVER being circular? The elongate types I have no  problem with and probably would never had disputed this one if not for Hurley.

Thanks for rekindling those memories. 

Everyone takes Structural Geology?   Uhh, no.   

[hammer]

I didn't take structural geology, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Oh, wait. No I didn't. 

[USRanger]

Blue crayons taste gud.

[allaire]

Yellow ones taste like sunshine.

[gyrene81]

I would have to disagree with the anticline formation idea...but not based on a PhD in geology...just a laymans eye after looking at a lot of pictures of impact craters and volcanic formations from around the world.

Looking at the colorations within the circles and the surrounding rock, you can tell it was a lava flow. In the top picture you can see where that formation is sitting smack in the middle of an ancient lava flow and judging from the finger formations and the steep angle they form (presupposing added effects of erosion) that lava flow was on the edge of a large body of water.

Look at it from the outermost edges first...steep "cut off" sheer edge on one side and more gradual sloping edge on the other...which denotes a slight angle of impact or movement of semi solid material in one direction when whatever event took place. Then look at the internal rings, non-concentric though close and one side is higher than the other and the side with less of a "lip" is deeper. Looking closely at one edge of the outer ring and the biggest internal ring you can see "feathered edges" (for lack of a better word) which shows absolutely that semi-solid material had been "splattered" a short distance in one direction and not the other. Part of the high edge is higher than the rest, and has a more pronounced "feathering" effect. Then look at the very center, it's almost perfectly round.

The first appearance would make you think something big dropped down into that flow but then if you look at a blown up NASA images of it top down, from the center out it could have been a gas bubble that blew out.

[Masherbrum]

I would have to disagree with the anticline formation idea...but not based on a PhD in geology...just a laymans eye after looking at a lot of pictures of impact craters and volcanic formations from around the world.

Looking at the colorations within the circles and the surrounding rock, you can tell it was a lava flow. In the top picture you can see where that formation is sitting smack in the middle of an ancient lava flow and judging from the finger formations and the steep angle they form (presupposing added effects of erosion) that lava flow was on the edge of a large body of water.

Look at it from the outermost edges first...steep "cut off" sheer edge on one side and more gradual sloping edge on the other...which denotes a slight angle of impact or movement of semi solid material in one direction when whatever event took place. Then look at the internal rings, non-concentric though close and one side is higher than the other and the side with less of a "lip" is deeper. Looking closely at one edge of the outer ring and the biggest internal ring you can see "feathered edges" (for lack of a better word) which shows absolutely that semi-solid material had been "splattered" a short distance in one direction and not the other. Part of the high edge is higher than the rest, and has a more pronounced "feathering" effect. Then look at the very center, it's almost perfectly round.

The first appearance would make you think something big dropped down into that flow but then if you look at a blown up NASA images of it top down, from the center out it could have been a gas bubble that blew out.

There is not one drop of Basalt in that formation.   Also, if it WAS Volcanic in origin (which it is not), it would have been a Dome (Devil's Tower) proven 100%.   However, this formation IS comprised of two symmetrically-dipping anticlines.   Which still makes this an eroded Dome.   But more than likely Igneous in origin.   You would know right off of the bat if this was Basalt (Volcanic).   

What you and Chalenge fail to understand is how the DESERT and the wind patterns can easily erode rocks (regardless of Igneous, Sedimentary or Metamorphic) in almost any pattern.

[Ack-Ack]

I would have to disagree with the anticline formation idea...but not based on a PhD in geology...just a laymans eye after looking at a lot of pictures of impact craters and volcanic formations from around the world.

Looking at the colorations within the circles and the surrounding rock, you can tell it was a lava flow. In the top picture you can see where that formation is sitting smack in the middle of an ancient lava flow and judging from the finger formations and the steep angle they form (presupposing added effects of erosion) that lava flow was on the edge of a large body of water.

Look at it from the outermost edges first...steep "cut off" sheer edge on one side and more gradual sloping edge on the other...which denotes a slight angle of impact or movement of semi solid material in one direction when whatever event took place. Then look at the internal rings, non-concentric though close and one side is higher than the other and the side with less of a "lip" is deeper. Looking closely at one edge of the outer ring and the biggest internal ring you can see "feathered edges" (for lack of a better word) which shows absolutely that semi-solid material had been "splattered" a short distance in one direction and not the other. Part of the high edge is higher than the rest, and has a more pronounced "feathering" effect. Then look at the very center, it's almost perfectly round.

The first appearance would make you think something big dropped down into that flow but then if you look at a blown up NASA images of it top down, from the center out it could have been a gas bubble that blew out.

Lack of igneous rocks eliminates volcanic activity as the cause, also a lack of shock-altered rocks eliminates an impact crater as another suggested a cause.


ack-ack

[Reschke]

I'm telling you guys it is an alien landing site. No doubt about it.

[Masherbrum]

I'm telling you guys it is an alien landing site. No doubt about it.

 

[Chalenge]

There is not one drop of Basalt in that formation.   Also, if it WAS Volcanic in origin (which it is not), it would have been a Dome (Devil's Tower) proven 100%.   However, this formation IS comprised of two symmetrically-dipping anticlines.   Which still makes this an eroded Dome.   But more than likely Igneous in origin.   You would know right off of the bat if this was Basalt (Volcanic).   

What you and Chalenge fail to understand is how the DESERT and the wind patterns can easily erode rocks (regardless of Igneous, Sedimentary or Metamorphic) in almost any pattern.

Its not a lack of understanding although I understand the very base inclination of todays amusment with insult. No my comment was based on people much wiser and one person in particular that indicated that such formations in a circular nature are far less likely than pimples on a diamond.

[Masherbrum]

Its not a lack of understanding although I understand the very base inclination of todays amusment with insult. No my comment was based on people much wiser and one person in particular that indicated that such formations in a circular nature are far less likely than pimples on a diamond.

Move along since you only managed to hijack this thread, with no substance given, other than plagiarized readings.    

[Chalenge]

See Rule #4

[OOZ662]

Reminds me of one of those giant jawbreakers when it's only been 1/3 of the way "eaten."

Obviously, some giant alien cow was licking the ground.

[Black Sheep]

And I can easily copy and paste from the web what I think it is too. But I won't. I think it's an enormous rock goblin hiding in the sands peeking out and waiting for the space ships to come...