Of course they gave no reason; they don't use logic because it's a religion for them.
The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
Simple.
The second implies that the first assumes that Ganymede is already completely frozen solid - therefore not still expanding.
Then again, i'm not surprised that, once again, you'd fail to grasp the subtleties of the english language.
You never have answered whether or not English is your first language.
Oh Bullocks you lying dishonest hack.
Ah, so then you admit it has expanded and has grown throughout it's geological past.
You must be a "pseudoscientist" like I am. Welcome to the club.
So let me ask you this, what mechanism caused Ganymede to stop growing?
Sorry Trippy, this is a thread about Ganymede not Callisto or anything else for that matter (as I have repeatedly pointed out).
OIM:
This, as you know, was comprehensively debunked by me in our Formal Debate.
I would appreciate it if you did not continue to peddle this rubbish after it has been proved wrong.
Thankyou.
This, as you know, was comprehensively debunked by me in our Formal Debate.
I would appreciate it if you did not continue to peddle this rubbish after it has been proved wrong.
Thankyou.
You failed to provide a single peer-reviewed reference debunking the zircon dating of the oceanic lithosphere that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no part of the oceanic lithosphere is older than 200 my old.
And I am still waiting for any peer-reviewed paper showing Ganymede has maintained a fixed radius.
Last edited:
Matter of fact, in our debate you only cited 2 relevant articles, both of which you got from biased fundamentalist Wikipedia Scripture.
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316-321
and
Stewart, A. D. 1983. Quantitative limits to the palaeoradius of the Earth. pp. 305-319 in Carey, S. W. (ed). 1983. The expanding Earth (A Symposium, 1981, University of Sydney, Australia). University of Tasmania, Tasmania.
Both of which are refuted below:
Carey, S.W. (1961), "Palaeomagnetic evidence relevant to a change in the Earth's radius", Nature 190: 36
Gillies, G.T., et al. (1997), The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies, Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225
However, you won't find the above articles cited in fundamentalist Wikipedia Scripture because they don't enforce the alleged "neutral point of view" policy. Sound familiar?
McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316-321
and
Stewart, A. D. 1983. Quantitative limits to the palaeoradius of the Earth. pp. 305-319 in Carey, S. W. (ed). 1983. The expanding Earth (A Symposium, 1981, University of Sydney, Australia). University of Tasmania, Tasmania.
Both of which are refuted below:
Carey, S.W. (1961), "Palaeomagnetic evidence relevant to a change in the Earth's radius", Nature 190: 36
Gillies, G.T., et al. (1997), The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies, Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225
However, you won't find the above articles cited in fundamentalist Wikipedia Scripture because they don't enforce the alleged "neutral point of view" policy. Sound familiar?
Last edited:
I admit no such thing, and for you to attempt to imply as much is dishonest, and a deliberate misrepresentation of my post.
For some bizzare reason I feel compelled to entertain this question, inspite of your blatant lying and dishonesty.
The answer is simple.
Same reason an icecube stops expanding.
There's a finite amount of water, it creates a finite amount of ice, and undergoes a finite volume change in the process.
IE if there's no more water to freeze, then no more expansion can occur.
For you to try and imply that I have at any point meant anything other than the mechanism which causes ice cubes to expand, or pipes to burst is simply another example of your blatant dishonesty.
I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to misquote, and misrepresent what i'm saying.
I'm not going to respond to this, other then to say that it is yet another example of your blatant dishonesty.
OIM:
Please review what I wrote about this point in our Formal Debate, in the Formal Debates forum. I agree with your lithosphere dates. This is not a point of contention, so why you keep repeating it like it is a killer point somewhat mystifies me.
I think you lack originality and are probably only capable of parroting one or two debunked ideas.
Please review what I wrote about this point in our Formal Debate, in the Formal Debates forum. I agree with your lithosphere dates. This is not a point of contention, so why you keep repeating it like it is a killer point somewhat mystifies me.
I think you lack originality and are probably only capable of parroting one or two debunked ideas.
So what did you mean when you said "still" expanding?
I'm confused, do you or do you not think Ganymede has expanded in it's geological past, yes or no?
A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.
So if you agree with the dates, then you know the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.
"All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations -- just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That's because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas -- not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply "walked" from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn't have to accept that many miracles." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003
why would anyone need to? this is consistent with plate tectonics
Exactly what I said.
Even if in the past, Ganymede has expanded because of the change in density that occurs when water changes state, I don't believe that the evidence supports the idea of this being a currently active mechanism (of any significance).
No it isn't.
I think that IF Ganymede has expanded as its frozen, that the change of radius has been no more than about 2.2% (change of volume of 10%).
No.
The first statement does not imply the second.
It only implies that no part of the pacific ocean basin is more than 200 mya.
Oh but that's right, you don't think subduction is valid, therefore your dogma requires you to believe that the Pacific Ocean didn't exist 200 mya.
So you're not sure one way or the other now?
What do you believe, has Ganymede expanded or not?
And if Ganymede grew in the past, a possibility you now admit to, what mechansim caused it to stop growing?
I challenge you to show me one part of the Pacific Ocean older than 200 myo or one peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating the Pacific Ocean existed in the Triassic.
I thought you said you were from California?
There's proof right there, Sandiego Harbour has several examples.
No you haven't. I asked you a yes or no question and asked for a yes or no answer. You failed to do so by responding with "if" statements by which I take you to mean "maybe."