Peer-reviewed citation please. A harbor is not an ocean.
The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
I answered your question, and explained that it wasn't a simple yes/no thing.
I also explained in precise language, and provided numbers.
You don't like my answer? Tough bickies.
Accept it, or move on.
LOL. Dishonest hack. Not honest enough with yourself to answer a basic yes or no question.
I challenge you to explain why this isn't a prediction of plate tectonics - - you can't win the belt unless you step in the ring with the champ.
Cue flippant answer to deflect from his ignorance........
This is what plate tectonics predicts in the Triassic...
Wegener, A.L., (1915), The Origin Of Continents and Oceans.
I didn't say it was. There are several examples of accreeted marine terranes in the Sandiego region, the most spectacular ones are in the harbour region.
I (generally speaking) simply can not be bothered trying to find peer reviewed literature to prove that there are paleozoic and early mesozoic marine sediments in california - where you claim to be from., so here's a geological map of california instead.
http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/8/G/calmap.jpg
Note the Paleozoic and mesozoic marine sediments.
That's because, as I clearly stated in my post, I don't believe the question to have a simple yes or no answer.
Get over it.
You're lying (again).
California is dry "land" (continental crust) and is therefore not part of the oceanic lithospere. The reason why you can't show any peer-reviewed paper claiming otherwise is that no such paper exists.
No.
The reason I can't pull them out, is because I can't be bothered looking for them to prove a point to a dogmatic zealot who's tactic will to be to simply deny any proofs that are presented in the paper.
Huge difference.
The point that you've missed is that parts of california were oceanic crust, this is (ostensibly) how continental crust grows. There's a series of formations in california that are, in essence, sea mounts that got scrapped off the farralon plate as it subduced beneath the North American plate.
If you bothered clicking on the link, you would ssee that the palezoic/mesozoic marine sediments are described as being continental shelf, and continental slope sediments, the direct implication being that there was adjacent oceanice crust (a continental shelf does not exist without an oceanic basin, which requires the existence of oceanic crust).
This really is basic logic, and your inability to follow it suggests one of a couple of things, none of which are particularly flattering of you.
Ganymede [GAN-ee-meed] is the largest moon of Jupiter and is the largest in our solar system with a diameter of 5,262 km (3,280 miles). If Ganymede orbited the Sun instead of Jupiter it could be classified as a planet. Like Callisto, Ganymede is most likely composed of a rocky core with a water/ice mantle and a crust of rock and ice. Its low density of 1.94 gm/cm3, indicates that the core takes up about 50% of the satellite's diameter. Ganymede's mantle is most likely composed of ice and silicates, and its crust is probably a thick layer of water ice.
Ganymede has had a complex geological history. It has mountains, valleys, craters and lava flows. Ganymede is mottled by both light and dark regions. It is heavily cratered especially in the dark regions implying ancient origin. The bright regions show a different kind of terrain - one which is grooved with ridges and troughs. These features form complex patterns and have a vertical relief of a few hundred meters and run for thousands of kilometers. The grooved features were apparently formed more recently than the dark cratered area perhaps by tension from global tectonic processes. The real reason is unknown; however, local crust spreading does appear to have taken place causing the crust to shear and separate.
from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/ganymede.htm
So, the current theories on Ganymede are that it has a crust of ice, the ridges on which suggest that tectonic activity has caused the surface to expand. As the surface of the earth acts like a very dense fluid, if we saw similar ridges on the earth's surface, then I suppose this would suggest that the earth was expanding at those regions.
I can't see how that causes a problem.
There is certainly local growth where the magma rises into the space left when plates move apart. Rift volcanoes are not in question. But plates also slide under each other, and form mountains by rippling.
Is it your position that the earth is measurably increasing in circumference?
Ganymede has had a complex geological history. It has mountains, valleys, craters and lava flows. Ganymede is mottled by both light and dark regions. It is heavily cratered especially in the dark regions implying ancient origin. The bright regions show a different kind of terrain - one which is grooved with ridges and troughs. These features form complex patterns and have a vertical relief of a few hundred meters and run for thousands of kilometers. The grooved features were apparently formed more recently than the dark cratered area perhaps by tension from global tectonic processes. The real reason is unknown; however, local crust spreading does appear to have taken place causing the crust to shear and separate.
from http://www.solarviews.com/eng/ganymede.htm
So, the current theories on Ganymede are that it has a crust of ice, the ridges on which suggest that tectonic activity has caused the surface to expand. As the surface of the earth acts like a very dense fluid, if we saw similar ridges on the earth's surface, then I suppose this would suggest that the earth was expanding at those regions.
I can't see how that causes a problem.
There is certainly local growth where the magma rises into the space left when plates move apart. Rift volcanoes are not in question. But plates also slide under each other, and form mountains by rippling.
Is it your position that the earth is measurably increasing in circumference?
Last edited:
Firstly, you ignored all my questions. Why is that? Secondly, all astronomy books which describe the history of the solar system talk about how the various moons and planets rapidly accreted material, got to their present size and then stopped growing, since the vast majority of the dust material in the solar system had been gathered up by the Sun, planets or moons or was blown out of the solar system when the Sun ignited.
Do you really think noone noticed your dishonestly, the way you continually misconstrue what Trippy says to you, the way you ignore the simple alternative mainstream explaination for all ocean crust being young and how you have to misinterpret most of your sources to make them sound like they support you?
This is what plate tectonics predicts in the Triassic...
Wegener, A.L., (1915), The Origin Of Continents and Oceans.
Round 1 goes to the Champ as the challenger fails to even throw a punch, and is floored by a tasty 1-2 combination.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w449k28003h477m7/
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv...130/1052-5173(2005)015[4:TSFHIO]2.0.CO;2&ct=1
The challenger is saved by the bell and just about staggers back to his corner
Unfortunately for you, scientists make a conceptual difference between continents and oceans.
Ah another pseudoscientist. Nice to meet you.
Indeed. Mid-oceanic ridges.
It causes a problem for plate tectonics fundamentalists who assume the Earth has a fixed radius because it contradicts their primitive 20th century religion. That is why they call peer-reviewed science from Nature and Science Magazine "pseudoscience."
From the responses in this thread it would seem to be questioned.
Yeah, unfortunately for plate tectonics no subduction has been observed on Ganymede or any planet in the solar system.
Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?, Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150
Yes but this is a thread about Ganymede.
Last edited:
Where in that paper does it say California is part of the oceanic lithosphere?
Firstly you ignored the peer reviewed science in the OP.
Probably because you have shown no respect for anyone with opposing views.
What's the question?
So according to you, Ganymede has expanded in it's geological history?
Fair enough. As our disagreement would occur only if the thread was about a different subject, I will leave you to it.
I provided the reference you asked for. You lose.
"It is not known when this mode of tectonic activity and heat loss began on Earth."
Try never.
Since you ignored the peer reviewed science in the OP you might as well ignore these too:
Scalera, G. (2005), Are Subduction Zones, Actually Mantle Wedges Upduction?, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Volume 7, 07211
Griffin, W.L., and O'Reilly, S.Y. (2006), Eclogites in the SLM: The Subduction Myth, IAVCEI, 6
Griffin, W.L., and O'Reilly, S.Y. (2007), Cratonic Lithospheric Mantle: Is Anything Subducted?, Episodes, Volume 7, Number 1, Pages 43-53
Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?, Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150
Last edited:
Firstly, peer reviewed does not automatically make it right. You must be aware of this fact because you ignore 99.9999% of peer reviewed physics and tout the 0.0001% which you think agrees with your claims. So the fact I'm not sold on the tiny tiny amount of ambigiously interpreted evidence you've provided is no worse (a lot less worse in fact) than you ignoring pretty much all of modern science.
When that person is a proven liar and, as clear as day, misconstrues what people say, despite repeated corrections, then I don't think I should have to give said person respect. If it wasn't so immediately obvious that you're a deranged lying idiot, I might give you a modicum of respect. But since you not only haven't earn't any you have demonstrated you don't deserve any, I don't show you any. Trippy I have a great deal of respect for. Not because he and I have similar scientific views but because he's able to present his argument in a coherent articulate way which doesn't require or result in him lying about what other people have said, as you do.
Why is it okay for you to ignore most science or call people idiots when you then complain when other people ignore what tiny crumbs of science you try to provide or when someone insults you? Why are you employing the hypocritical 'Do as I say, not as I do!' methodology?
Now this is a deliberate attempt to get me to say something which you will then quote out of context. It's a common method of yours and it's one which Trippy has repeatedly commented on. Ganymede is roughly the same age as the Earth, 4.5 billions years. Has it grown in size by an appreciable (ie more than say 5%) in the last 4 billion years? No. It grew to almost it's present size during the formative stage of the solar system, ie the first few hundred million years. After that the occasional meteor strike hasn't altered its size by any noteworthy amount. Astrophysics has the planets and moons growing from small clumps of dust and debris to pretty much their current size in a few hundred million years. So it's not a clear cut 'Yes or no' question, as Trippy as told you, and so we aren't going to give you a one word answer because if we said "Yes" then you would quote us saying "So you agree with me!" when anyone reading the thread can clearly see we don't agree with you. That is why I don't think you deserve any respect, you don't have a shred of integrity.