The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede

[OilIsMastery]

Topic: Why do religious fundamentalists deny peer reviewed science?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede, Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation "global expansion".

Collins, G.C., Pappalardo, R.T., & Head, J.W., Surface Stresses Resulting From Internal Differentiation: Application to Ganymede Tectonics, Lunar and Planetary Science XXX, 1695, 1999

"Researchers now believe that Ganymede's more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed." -- Richard. A. Kerr, 2001

Kerr, R.A., Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line, Science, Volume 291, Number 5501, Pages 22-23, 2001

"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer/geoscientist, 2005

"Ganymede's grooved terrain likely formed during an epoch of global expansion..." -- Michael T. Bland and Adam P. Showman, 2007

Bland, M.T., and Showman, A.P., The Formation of Ganymede's Grooved Terrain: Numerical Modeling of Extensional Necking Instabilities, Icarus, Volume 189, Issue 2, Pages 439-456, Aug 2007

Adams, N., Ganymede Video, Youtube

 

[AlphaNumeric]

"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis McCarthy, biogeographer/geoscientist, 2005

Taken out of context. No physicist denies that the Sun, the planets and their moons formed by accretion, by gravitationally capturing more and more material. But the vast majority of that happened right at the beginning of the solar system, 4.5 billion years ago. The planets and moons have not grown by anything more than a tiny amount in the last 4 billion years, which is what you claim.

The fact you have to fall back on warping quotes of people shows you know your 'evidence' is pathetic. Or that you're too stupid to realise your evidence is worthless.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Taken out of context.

Did you even read the context?

Here is the context: Expanding Earth Part II, The Geophysics FAQ

No physicist denies that the Sun, the planets and their moons formed by accretion, by gravitationally capturing more and more material.

Exactly.

But the vast majority of that happened right at the beginning of the solar system, 4.5 billion years ago. The planets and moons have not grown by anything more than a tiny amount in the last 4 billion years, which is what you claim.

How do you know that?

The fact you have to fall back on warping quotes of people shows you know your 'evidence' is pathetic.

How did I warp the quote? What about the other quotes you ignored? Did I warp those too?

Or that you're too stupid to realise your evidence is worthless.

Calling someone "too stupid" is specifically against forum rules.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

How do you know that?

This small area of science called 'geology'. The area which is all about the development of geological features. The area you refuse to read about or fail to understand. The area you completely ignore when making your claims.

How did I warp the quote? What about the other quotes you ignored? Did I warp those too?

Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?

JamesR already beat your evidence to a pulp in the debate forum. Your 'irrefutable evidence' is laughable, just like the time you quoted a crank on subduction being 'irrefutably false'. James refuted it and everything else you had to offer. You just closed your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and tried to hum real loud to ignore him.

Calling someone "too stupid" is specifically against forum rules.

I was asking you a question. Are you deliberately ignoring geology or have you tried to learn/understand it but found your mental faculties are insufficient to grasp the information you read? Clearly there is some reason why you don't know or don't appear to know basic geology (as well as physics, maths, chemistry and biology) so I'm trying to find out that reason. Is it deliberate ignorance or are you unable to grasp these things because they are too complex for you?

 

[OilIsMastery]

This small area of science called 'geology'. The area which is all about the development of geological features. The area you refuse to read about or fail to understand. The area you completely ignore when making your claims.

You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

However this isn't a geology thread, it's a thread about Ganymede.

Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?

So you think Nature, Science, and Science News publish cranks and nobodies?

 

[Anti-Flag]

You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

Suggest you look up words such as Triassic Period. Pangaea. Ichthyosaurs.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Suggest you look up words such as Triassic Period.

200 mya when the Earth was half it's current diameter. What about it?

This is a thread about Ganymede...

Pangaea.

A myth like the lost continent of Mu. This is a thread about Ganymede..

Ichthyosaurs.

What about it? Every fossil was found in a continental environment (Wales, England, Nevada, etc). This is a thread about Ganymede..

 

[kaneda]

Quotes from cranks, quotes out of context, quotes from nobodies, quotes from people as ignorant as you. Why should I need to retort those?

Is it deliberate ignorance or are you unable to grasp these things because they are too complex for you?

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.

 

[OilIsMastery]

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.

I didn't say it...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A typically nasty post from a typically nasty person.

People in glass houses Kaneda.

I didn't say it...

Nice double standards. The hint of an insult in a question I ask you and you cry "Against the rules!". An insult aimed at me and you have no problem quoting it with a comment which clearly shows you agree with it. A case of 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

You know what geology tells me? The oceans didn't exist 200 mya and the Earth has doubled in size.

Funny, it tells geologists something completely different. And as JamesR demonstrated, the evidence from geology doesn't support your views.

However this isn't a geology thread, it's a thread about Ganymede.

It's a thread about the geology of Ganymede.

So you think Nature, Science, and Science News publish cranks and nobodies?

I didn't say that. The links you provide do not support your claims. Hence you take certain parts of them out of context. The fact you make a personal interpretation of a comment by someone which is completely different to the meaning originally intended doesn't mean the person you misunderstand or misinterpret is a crank. But you also like to provide quotes of people who are unpublished and considered completely incorrect by the scientific community. Myers being such an example. You quoted him yet because his claims are unsupported by evidence, the quote is worthless.

It's not hard to cherry pick things people say to make it seem that they think the opposite of what they do. Given it's easier to do that than learn the science yourself, it's a common methodology of cranks like yourself when asked to support your nonsense.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Funny, it tells geologists something completely different. And as JamesR demonstrated, the evidence from geology doesn't support your views.

That's the same argument that was used by uniformitarians who rejected continental drift.

I didn't say that. The links you provide do not support your claims. Hence you take certain parts of them out of context. The fact you make a personal interpretation of a comment by someone which is completely different to the meaning originally intended doesn't mean the person you misunderstand or misinterpret is a crank. But you also like to provide quotes of people who are unpublished and considered completely incorrect by the scientific community. Myers being such an example. You quoted him yet because his claims are unsupported by evidence, the quote is worthless.

It's not hard to cherry pick things people say to make it seem that they think the opposite of what they do. Given it's easier to do that than learn the science yourself, it's a common methodology of cranks like yourself when asked to support your nonsense.

Exactly what part of this doesn't support my argument?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede, Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

 

[Trippy]

That's the same argument that was used by uniformitarians who rejected continental drift.


Exactly what part of this doesn't support my argument?

"The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". -- Prockter, L.M., Icing Ganymede, Nature, Volume 410, Pages 25-27, 2001

You do understand that water expands as it freezes, is unusual in doing so, and constitutes a large part of the volume of Ganymede.

You do also realise that this in no way supports that the idea that the earth has some how doubled it size in 200ma without anyone noticing, and without leaving any evidence?

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

Hey OilIsMastery, have you checked the research by Neal Adams? I've been reading about the Earth Expansion Theory over the past 2 months and I can say it definitely makes more sense than the Pangea theory.

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex wouldn't have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.

 

[pjdude1219]

Topic: Why do religious fundamentalists deny peer reviewed science?

I don't know. Why do you?

 

[Trippy]

Hey OilIsMastery, have you checked the research by Neal Adams? I've been reading about the Earth Expansion Theory over the past 2 months and I can say it definitely makes more sense than the Pangea theory.

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex would have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.

No, the 'Pangea theory' does not require 'events' for it to make sense.

(whatever you mean by that).

 

[ScyentsIzLief]

The Pangea Theory requires India to break off of Africa and "drift" upwards to hit Asia, which created the Himalayas, which is still growing to this day. If that isn't an event, I don't what is. There is absolutely no basis for this. Just a small example upon mountains of examples.

 

[Anti-Flag]

200 mya when the Earth was half it's current diameter. What about it?

You made the claim that oceans didn't exist, I showed a good starting point for anyone wishing to counter this nonsense.
I'm entirely unconcerned for your ignorance, but I'd hate to think a gullible sap might come across this thread and actually take you seriously.

A myth like the lost continent of Mu.

Proof required.

What about it? Every fossil was found in a continental environment (Wales, England, Nevada, etc).

More evidence you don't understand geology, plate tectonics, environmental change (amongst other things) and despite the abundance of marine fossils from 200mya you think there wasn't an ocean.
I wonder if mathmatically it's possible to calculate the size of ecosystem required for the lifeforms alive 200mya to thrive.
You've already decided the earths surface area was only 2/3's that of Asia, and had little water. How about 400mya, was it half the size it was 200mya? At this constant rate why don't you tell us when the earth had a surface area the size of Texas? Cuba perhaps? Or are you claiming it's not constant (this'll be interesting to watch you prove too).


Perhaps you should tune in to sanity FM dingleberry breath.


Don't respond, I've read everyone elses rebuttals already and know full well you've been thoroughly debunked so this is for everyone elses benefit, I hate the thought of anyone believing you.

 

[Anti-Flag]

The Pangea theory requires "events" for it to make some sense, while the EE explains all the questions I had before. For example, if the gravity of earth was the same now as it was when the dinosaurs roamed, they would have never grown to be so big. And the T-Rex would have been alive because they wouldn't be able to move faster than 10 mph or their necks would brake when turning or stopping. Obviously they had to chase down prey, like lions. But if you accept that gravity was 1/4 of what it is now, because the earth was 1/4 of what it is now, then you can see how a R-rex CAN move like a tiger.

Never heard of scavenging then? I'm not even going to bother with anything else you said OIM.
SOCKPUPPET! SOCKPUPPET! SOCKPUPPET!

 

[Trippy]

The Pangea Theory requires India to break off of Africa and "drift" upwards to hit Asia, which created the Himalayas, which is still growing to this day. If that isn't an event, I don't what is. There is absolutely no basis for this. Just a small example upon mountains of examples.

El wrongo.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You do understand that water expands as it freezes, is unusual in doing so, and constitutes a large part of the volume of Ganymede.

I thought you believe that's impossible...

You do also realise that this in no way supports that the idea that the earth has some how doubled it size in 200ma without anyone noticing, and without leaving any evidence?

This is a thread about Ganymede.