The Irrefutable Expansion of Ganymede

AlphaNumeric said:
Firstly, peer reviewed does not automatically make it right.
Click to expand...
You can say that again...:rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...
So Ganymede hasn't changed in 4 billion years?

What caused it to stop growing?

Scientists tell a different story. See OP you are ignoring.

Not sure how it would even be possible for Ganymede to maintain a fixed radius given there are no subduction zones on Ganymede.

Martin, P., et al. (2008), Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?, Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150

It grew to almost it's present size during the formative stage of the solar system, ie the first few hundred million years.
Click to expand...
Evidence? Source? Link? Reference? Citation? Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
Where in that paper does it say California is part of the oceanic lithosphere?
Click to expand...

Good greif man.

Once again, you're distorting what people are saying.

Nobody is saying that California is part of the Oceanic lithosphere.

What is being said however, is that parts of california contain oceanic lithospheric facies.

A subtle difference which you will fail to grasp.
 
Trippy said:
And thus proving (again) that you know less about geology than you do chemistry.
Click to expand...
Why do you think continents are oceans?

Trippy said:
Nobody is saying that California is part of the Oceanic lithosphere.
Click to expand...
If that's true, why do you keep bringing up California?

What is being said however, is that parts of california contain oceanic lithospheric facies.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

A subtle difference which you will fail to grasp.
Click to expand...
Dishonest hack. You are lying again.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Why do you think continents are oceans?

If that's true, why do you keep bringing up California?

Irrelevant.

Dishonest hack. You are lying again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point for me.

By making these comments, you adequitely demonstrate that you don't understand the difference.

Oh, and if you're going to try and insult me, at least be original about it.
 
Trippy said:
Thanks for proving my point for me.

By making these comments, you adequitely demonstrate that you don't understand the difference.

Oh, and if you're going to try and insult me, at least be original about it.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer either question.

(1) Why are you afraid of answering questions?

(2) Why do you think continents are oceans?

(3) Why did you bring up California?
 
You brought up the subjects of expansion and subduction, by denying that the latter exists, by claiming in a very iterative way, that all geologists, geochemists and geophysicists, apart from a chosen few, must be lying about it, constructing a vast conspiracy, etc.
Hence the explanations, and retorts, of what the model is supposed to be, how it works, from the other corner.

You can't even explain what the alternative model works like, what it predicts, what evidence there is for it, or what sort of evidence to look for.
Ganymede supports a tectonic model based on ice-sheet dynamics, not of liquid water like we got. You may have noticed, that frozen water is different to the wet stuff.
 
OilIsMastery said:
You didn't answer either question.

(1) Why are you afraid of answering questions?

(2) Why do you think continents are oceans?

(3) Why did you bring up California?
Click to expand...

The first question is an outright lie (or at least based on one).

And I've already answered the second two questions.

Apparently however, you lack the reading comprehension skills to actually understand my answer.

The only person who's afraid of answering questions is you.

Or are you going to finally answer whether or not English is your second language, because there's only two reasonable explanations for some of the utter utter BS you come out with - and that's one of them.

It occurs to me that I should point out rather, with regards to the second question, it to represents a completely false misrepresentation of my comments.

You're being blatantly deceitful. YET AGAIN.
 
OIM:

Please try to adhere to some standard of intellectual honesty in your responses to other posters.
 
OIM:

You misrepresent people's arguments, mostly by creating straw men out of them.
 
ScyentsIzLief said:
All I've seen Trippy do is make unsupported claims, deny others' backed claims, and make personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Blatant lie.

The only comments that I have made (except possibly one) that could be interpreted as insulting are substantiated comments on the contents of OIM's posts.

Besides which, the ideas that I have been putting forward have been mainstream, and most science forums put the onus on the person proposing the new idea (or in this case, pseudo science) to provide literature or evidence to support that Idea.

More to the point, you obviously fail to grasp the simple fact the publishing of a geological map usually involves the publishing of a paper to discuss the findings, thus, citing a map, indirectly cites a peer reviewed paper.
 
Can't be bothered wasting more time on you, OIM, especially to point out things you are already well aware of.
 
James R said:
Did OIM invite you here?

Are you a "follower" of his?

Is he your Messiah?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Have you been to other forums? Do you know how real mods act like? Try to be a bit more profressional please.

All your debate points are based on opinions. You don't reference anything, and you assume the plate tectonics theory is "truth" and use that to "disprove" the EET.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top