Planetary Stretch Marks: More Evidence For Expansion Tectonics [Archive]

SkinWalker

10-26-08, 10:39 PM

You mean how are you supposed to know who to attack with insult and ad hominems? You could try google or something but that would require reading, effort, and research. Source posted above.

To the casual reader, this is the typical response from a pseudoscience proponent that makes a claim and is challenged: "do your own research."

Rather than support claims with genuine peer-reviewed work, they offer quotes mined out of context from real scientific works or present quotes from non-scientific sources dressed up as science. This, casual reader, is pseudoscience.

I'm betting OIM has cited a source that is a fellow crackpot and not an actual researcher and is, thus, hesitant to show this link since he's already dressed the quote up to appear as a scientific one when it's really just a crackpot.

And, yes, ad hominem is the correct term for the argument when I say crackpot. But this is also a label that is useful and accurate given the anonymous sources probable beliefs and pseudoscientific outlook.

SkinWalker

10-26-08, 10:43 PM

This is a topic/thread best suited for the Pseudoscience subforum. Please move.

OilIsMastery

10-26-08, 10:45 PM

This is a topic/thread best suited for the Pseudoscience subforum. Please move.
LOL @ U.

I think all plate tectonics threads belong in pseudoscience.

SkinWalker

10-26-08, 10:52 PM

Lucky for the rest of the world, science doesn't revolve around your crackpot beliefs.

James R

10-26-08, 11:35 PM

OIM:

If this is such a good argument for planetary expansion, why didn't you rely on it in our debate?

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 12:10 AM

Topic: How does plate tectonics explain stretch marks on planets (e.g. Mercury) and moons (e.g. Callisto) that have no plate tectonics?

This is a strawman argument, since there is no citation to a claim that anyone here (or elsewhere) is claiming that "plate tectonics" created "stretch marks" on either of the two solar bodies mentioned.

"The apparent widening in diameter and flattening of older craters, is what one would expect to observe, if the exterior crust were slowly stretching. This is a very common observation on all rocky planets. The formation of concentric rings as present on the surfaces of Callisto and Mercury can show the effects of a gradual expansion with time." (Harms 1998)

The anonymous author above is clearly not educated in planetary sciences or even basic geology. If she went to school, she certainly shouldn't have left so early.

There is no "apparent widening in diameter and flattening of older craters" and there is no indication from this mysterious, undereducated author (assuming that OIM has maintained the context of the quote) that this is "what one would expect to observe, if the exterior crust were slowly stretching." By indication, I mean there's no demonstration of why such a concentric ring system would be present -no mathematical formula, empirical data, etc.

What *is* shown in the photo of Callista's Valhalla crater, however, is an impact and the resulting concentric rings that are a function of the thickness and strength of Callisto's lithosphere as well as the crater's diameter (McKinnon & Melosh 1980; Melosh 1982). These are the results of impact, which is a far, far more parsimonious explanation than "planetary expansion," which has no supporting data which can be tested. Impacts, however, can and have been tested on many occasions (Melosh 1999).

The dozens of grabens that surround the Valhalla impact crater are a result of the low-viscosity or low-strength of Callisto's lithosphere. A thin, weak lithosphere is the explanation for concentric rings (Luttrell, 2006; McKinnon & Melosh 1980; Melosh & McKinnon 1978). Not the pseudoscientific 'expansion' claim.

References:

Luttrell, Karen & David Sandwell (2006). Strength of the lithosphere of the Galilean satellites Icarus, 183 (1), 159-167.

McKinnon, William B. & H. J. Melosh (1980) Evolution of planetary lithospheres: Evidence from multiringed structures on Ganymede and Callisto, Icarus, 44 (2), 454-471.

Melosh, H.J. & B.A. Ivanov (1999). Impact Crater Collapse. Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science, 27, 385–415

Melosh, H.J. & W. McKinnon (1978). The mechanics of ringed basin formation. Geophysical Research Letters 5, 985–88

Melosh, H.J. (1982). A simple mechanical model of Valhalla Basin, Callisto. Journal of Geophysical Research 87, 1880–90

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 12:10 AM

OIM:

If this is such a good argument for planetary expansion, why didn't you rely on it in our debate?
Because I read and learn new things as time passes.

Here is another argument I didn't rely on.

"Over twelve years of laser ranging to the LAGEOS spacecraft have enabled the motions of the Earth's crust to be determined at approximately twenty laser tracking sites around the world. ...The relative motion of Hawaii and Arequipa is 80±3 mm/yr from our solution compared to the geologically predicted 66 mm/yr." (Smith et al, 1990).

So if Hawaii and Arequipa are moving away from eachother at 80±3 mm/yr, then the Nazca Plate cannot possibly be subducting. Therefore the Pacific is growing.

Furthermore, +65.33 mm/yr increasing width between Yaragadee Australia and Arequipa Peru (Smith et al., 1993). Therefore the Pacific is growing.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 12:13 AM

What publications are these quotes from?

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 12:15 AM

This is a strawman argument, since there is no citation to a claim that anyone here (or elsewhere) is claiming that "plate tectonics" created "stretch marks" on either of the two solar bodies mentioned.
A question is not an argument...:rolleyes:

The anonymous author above is clearly not educated in planetary sciences or even basic geology. If she went to school, she certainly shouldn't have left so early.
The author isn't anonymous. Furthermore ad hominem fallacies are not a logical or scientific argument...:rolleyes:

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 12:17 AM

What publications are these quotes from?
The 1990 paper is titled "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS." It was published in Developments in Four-Dimensional Geodesy. The 1993 paper is titled, "SLR Results from LAGEOS." However the exact paper is irrelevant since the scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but which unwittingly include several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 12:44 AM

A question is not an argument...

Then you obviously didn't pay attention in your first year philosophy class (assuming you ever attended one, which is a questionable assumption). Your question posited an argument which was a straw man.

Ad hominem fallacies are not a logical or scientific argument..

Ad hominem arguments are a part of logic as well as being fallacious. They can, and do, have their places in debate, particularly with skillful and timely placement. This, you would also have learned in a first year philosophy course. As far as being scientific, none of what you're presenting is "scientific." This has been demonstrated time and again.

The 1990 paper is titled "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS." It was published in Developments in Four-Dimensional Geodesy. The 1993 paper is titled, "SLR Results from LAGEOS." However the exact paper is irrelevant since the scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but which unwittingly include several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.

This is another of your complete and utter faults. Not only have you completely removed a quote from its original context, you consistently do this and hide the original texts so that others cannot review and see the contexts for themselves.

The quote above (Smith, D.E. et al 1990) isn't a paper at all but a part of a book chapter.

Had you bothered to retrieve the entire chapter, you would have read a work that demonstrates and supports the plate tectonic model with empirical data. As a sample, here's a quote:The fastest rates of motion in the entire network are observed between the Nazca and Pacific Plates. Although some of these results are from only a few years of data, the results we have obtained from the network adjustment are, in some cases, in very good agreement with the AM0-2 model. The SLR model gives an extremely fast spreading rate between Easter Island and Maui, 143+4 mm/yr, as well as an even larger spreading between Easter Island and Huahine of 172+7 ram/yr. The SL7.1 geodesic rates between Easter Island and Huahine and Maui is, at the 95% confidence level, insignificantly different from that predicted by AM0-2.This is the sort of prediction that the plate tectonic model predicted and was demonstrated as early as 1990.

Since that time, many such measurements have been made which, likewise, support the plate tectonic model and not a single bit of testable, empirical data has ever shown the pseudoscientific claim of "earth expansion" to be the supported.

Here's a question: what is the rate at which you suggest the Earth is expanding over what period of time?

Reference:

Smith, D.E. et al (1990). "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS," Developments in Four-Dimensional Geodesy. Berlin: Springer Publishing.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 12:49 AM

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 12:55 AM

Unfortunately personal insults and ad hominem attacks are explicity against forum rules.

Okay. I apologize.

Now, you're free to address the other content of my posts or concede that you know nothing of the science behind geologic processes. Your arguments are pseudoscientific and that is not an ad hominem remark.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 12:55 AM

Ad hominem arguments are a part of logic as well as being fallacious. They can, and do, have their places in debate, particularly with skillful and timely placement. This, you would also have learned in a first year philosophy course. As far as being scientific, none of what you're presenting is "scientific." This has been demonstrated time and again.
Allegedly it's against forum rules.

This is another of your complete and utter faults. Not only have you completely removed a quote from its original context, you consistently do this and hide the original texts so that others cannot review and see the contexts for themselves.

The quote above (Smith, D.E. et al 1990) isn't a paper at all but a part of a book chapter.

Had you bothered to retrieve the entire chapter, you would have read a work that demonstrates and supports the plate tectonic model with empirical data. As a sample, here's a quote:This is the sort of prediction that the plate tectonic model predicted and was demonstrated as early as 1990.

Since that time, many such measurements have been made which, likewise, support the plate tectonic model and not a single bit of testable, empirical data has ever shown the pseudoscientific claim of "earth expansion" to be the supported.
The SLR measurement is what it is. Deny it all you want. I really don't care.

Here's a question: what is the rate at which you suggest the Earth is expanding over what period of time?
The rate isn't constant and varies from spread to spread, point to point, and time to time. For example the recent rate at which Hawaii and Peru move apart is 80±3 mm/yr (Smith 1990).

FYI: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 01:11 AM

The SLR measurement is what it is. Deny it all you want. I really don't care.

I'm not denying it at all. Indeed, the SLR measurements of 1990 were not inconsistent with Plate Tectonics. Why would I deny them?

The rate isn't constant and varies from spread to spread, point to point, and time to time. For example the recent rate at which Hawaii and Peru move apart is 80±3 mm/yr (Smith 1990).

This is also consistent with the Plate Tectonics model.

Questions for OIM:

What is the rate at which you suggest the Earth is expanding and over what period of time?

In the debate you lost with James R, you made some attempt to cite Zircon dating as a reason for your pseudoscientific claim of "earth expansion." Could you please synthesize your argument here? What is it about zircon-dating of the oceanic floor that is consistent with the answer to the rates/time period above?

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 01:16 AM

Allegedly it's against forum rules.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that the umbrage you pretend to take with my "ad hominem" argument stems from my treatment of your anonymous source, which I characterized as undereducated. This person is not (apparently) a member of Sciforums, so no rule prohibits me from directly insulting he/she. Moreover, my characterization, while possibly insulting to the anonymous source, was accurate and stands until such time as the source demonstrates an understanding of basic geology.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 01:59 AM

I'm not denying it at all. Indeed, the SLR measurements of 1990 were not inconsistent with Plate Tectonics.
Precisely how is growth of 80±3 mm/yr between Hawaii and Peru consistent with plate tectonics?

Why would I deny them?
Because you're a fundamentalist.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:06 AM

What is the rate at which you suggest the Earth is expanding and over what period of time?
I told you already plus I provided a link to one possible answer but you ignored it.

In the debate you lost with James R, you made some attempt to cite Zircon dating as a reason for your pseudoscientific claim of "earth expansion." Could you please synthesize your argument here? What is it about zircon-dating of the oceanic floor that is consistent with the answer to the rates/time period above?
Do you know what oceanic seafloor spreading is?

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:07 AM

your anonymous source.
The source, namely John K. Harms, isn't anonymous. You are lying again.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:09 AM

Precisely how is growth of 80±3 mm/yr between Hawaii and Peru consistent with plate tectonics?

Why wouldn't it be? They're on different plates opposite a mid-oceanic ridge. They're supposed to be moving away from each other.

Because you're a faundamentalist.

I don't know what a "faundamentalist" is. Perhaps you meant "fundamentalist. This refers to Protestants in the U.S. who were interested in "getting back to the fundamentals" of Christianity and is named after the pamphlets distributed calling for this titled, The Fundamentals (ca. 1910). I'm not Protestant, so I don't see the relevance to geology.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:11 AM

Why wouldn't it be? They're on different plates opposite a mid-oceanic ridge. They're supposed to be moving away from each other.
:roflmao:

You sound like an expansionist now.

Not according to plate tectonics.

According to plate tectonics the Pacific Ocean is shrinking in size due to subduction.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:12 AM

The source, namely John K. Harms, isn't anonymous. You are lying again.

Since this is the first time you've attributed a name to the source, it was -until this post- an anonymous source. Indeed, John K. Harms remains anonymous since we still don't have the citation to the publication from which he was quoted. Up till now, you only attributed his quote as "Harms" which is hardly anything beyond anonymous. You are ignorant again.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:16 AM

Since this is the first time you've attributed a
name to the source, it was -until this post- an anonymous source.
It's not the first time...:rolleyes:

You should read my posts sometime.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:16 AM

:roflmao:

You sound like an expansionist now.

Not according to plate tectonics.

According to plate tectonics the Pacific Ocean is shrinking in size due to subduction.

Wow. You truly are ignorant. I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you. Why do you even bother trying to engage in discussions when you clearly lack the most basic education on the topic?

The Pacific and Nazca Plates are diverging, to be subducted at zones along the continents (i.e. along Chile and Peru in South America). The rates of divergence are consistent with rates of collision/subduction. There is no "expanding earth" nor is there any evidence of one.

Questions for OIM

What is the rate at which you suggest the Earth is expanding and over what period of time?

In the debate you lost with James R, you made some attempt to cite Zircon dating as a reason for your pseudoscientific claim of "earth expansion." Could you please synthesize your argument here? What is it about zircon-dating of the oceanic floor that is consistent with the answer to the rates/time period above?

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:18 AM

The Pacific and Nazca Plates are diverging, to be subducted at zones along the continents (i.e. along Chile and Peru in South America).
If the Nazca Plate is subducting why is Peru moving away from Hawaii?

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:19 AM

It's not the first time...:rolleyes:

You should read my posts sometime.

Be real. You cited it for that post. Properly citing a source is both common courtesy and intellectually honest. Failing to do so amounts to intellectual dishonesty at worst, demonstrating ignorance at best.

Further, the source you've still not cited (what's the publication?) is questionable and probably laughable -so it's clear as to the reason why you are so reluctant.

D H

10-27-08, 02:21 AM

Not according to plate tectonics.
Yes, according to plate tectonics. The East Pacific Rise is a divergent tectonic plate boundary that separates the Pacific plate from the Nazca plate (among others).

According to plate tectonics the Pacific Ocean is shrinking in size due to subduction.
Yet another logical fallacy. For someone who is quick to claim a violation of the rules, why in the world are you so quick to violate them? The subduction is occurring at the continental boundaries of the Pacific Ocean. The East Pacific Rise is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Spud Emperor

10-27-08, 02:24 AM

Skin!... ahem, aherr..her hem..

Go easy on him, he's like the Pope's port. Not the full bottle.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 02:26 AM

Yes, according to plate tectonics. The East Pacific Rise is a divergent tectonic plate boundary that separates the Pacific plate from the Nazca plate (among others).

Yet another logical fallacy. For someone who is quick to claim a violation of the rules, why in the world are you so quick to violate them? The subduction is occurring at the continental boundaries of the Pacific Ocean. The East Pacific Rise is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So according to you, plate tectonics says the Pacific Ocean is expanding?

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:26 AM

:roflmao:

This is the sum of the crack pot argument. A single roflmao smiley.

To the casual reader: this is one of the hallmarks of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscience. Those that make such nonsensical and extraordinary claims, when faced with reality, only know how to laugh. They're inherently incapable of formulating logical and rational arguments backed by empirical data since what they're proposing is crap to start with.

OIM has clearly lost all rational debates on the pseudoscientific notion of "expanding earth," or whatever the crackpots who follow this call it.

What's still fascinating, however, is that this isn't OIM's core beliefs. He has, somewhere, a preconceived idea -a conclusion- to which he acknowledges only those ideas that support it. This conclusion is probably related to "oil" or "petroleum" since based on his screen-name. And its probably every bit as pseudoscientific as his "expanding earth" nonsense, which he probably latched onto after trying to fit his original crackpot beliefs.

SkinWalker

10-27-08, 02:29 AM

So according to plate tectonics the Pacific Ocean is expanding?

Now your just trolling since this was already clearly explained. Since this is a science subforum and the thread never got moved to Pseudoscience, consider this a public warning for Trolling.

Spud Emperor

10-27-08, 02:30 AM

Could be that OIm is a puppet of some cause who is unravelling at a thousand miles an hour.

If that is the case, I'm apalled at sci for not booting his arse off along time ago.

If he's just a crackpot...Yeah, knock yourself out OIM, your delusions are fantastic, wonderful, if only you could use your powers for good, not evil.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 04:18 AM

"Does any real and substantive discussion between the two alternative tectonic theories really exist? After all discussion is a driving mechanism for progress in all science. Discussion is a duty of all scientific workers. It should be done with with respect to any opponents and serve as a means of looking for the scientific truth. However, is such discussion with the advocates of plate tectonics really possible? My own experience leads me to a pessimistic conclusion." -- Dr. Stefan Cwojdzinski, Polish Geological Institute

Walter L. Wagner

10-27-08, 01:55 PM

Subduction trenches are pretty-well defined along the Pacific rim [Marianas, Peru, etc., as well as elsewhere, and fit well with plate-tectonic theory. Likewise, the uplift of the nearby mountain ranges fit well with plate-tectonics, as well as the types of volcanic emissions in those ranges.

That having been said, there is also the possibility that there might be a very slight amount of expansion in volume of planets over time [less than 1% - not on the scale proposed by OIM]. This could be from two methods stemming from the same source.

If the interior of the planet heats up over time [from radioactive decay or nuclear fission], this would cause a very slight expansion. Likewise, if some of the Uranium/Thorium fissions, this would convert one atom into two smaller ones; with the volume of the two smaller ones being slightly greater than the single parent atom. Since it is not known [only conjectured] that fission occurs, this latter one is therefore also conjecture.

Both of those processes combined, however, appear to have an ability to create only a miniscule increase in volume, actually likely well less than 0.01% increase, over billions of years, and would not appear to support OIM's suppositions that there is no subduction. Anyone want to try to do some calculations?

rpenner

10-27-08, 03:15 PM

1) The interior of the planet is probably not heating up, but cooling down, since it was formed hot and should be above steady-state viz thorium decay, etc. (Section 6.2 of Nuclear Geochemistry)
2) The crust of the earth is about 0.0015% thorium, with a half-life of billions of years, so the reaction Th->6He + Pb is an important source of (lossy) helium gas, but not so much expansion. Unless the inner core is enriched in thorium by well over 2 orders of magnitude relative to the crust, this is, as Wagner writes, less than a 1% effect even before we consider loss mechanisms.

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/natural-decay-series.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=ptp6VMqh4xsC

Trippy

10-27-08, 03:30 PM

:roflmao:

You sound like an expansionist now.

Not according to plate tectonics.

According to plate tectonics the Pacific Ocean is shrinking in size due to subduction.

You keep bringing this point up, and yet it's completely irrelevant, as I (and others) have pointed out to you on multiple occasions.

The ONLY thing Hawaii moving away from Peru proves is that it's travelling towards the Eurasian plate faster then Peru is.

That idea, is not in itself, inconsiistent with the idea that the Pacific basin is shrinking.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 03:34 PM

You keep bringing this point up, and yet it's completely irrelevant, as I (and others) have pointed out to you on multiple occasions.

The ONLY thing Hawaii moving away from Peru proves is that it's travelling towards the Eurasian plate faster then Peru is.

That idea, is not in itself, inconsiistent with the idea that the Pacific basin is shrinking.
How do you explain the fact that Australia and Peru are moving away from eachother?

If the Nazca Plate is subducting why is Peru moving away from Hawaii?

Trippy

10-27-08, 03:37 PM

What's still fascinating, however, is that this isn't OIM's core beliefs. He has, somewhere, a preconceived idea -a conclusion- to which he acknowledges only those ideas that support it. This conclusion is probably related to "oil" or "petroleum" since based on his screen-name. And its probably every bit as pseudoscientific as his "expanding earth" nonsense, which he probably latched onto after trying to fit his original crackpot beliefs.

OIM is of the opinion that crude oil is exclusively abiogenic in origin.

Denying any possible biogenic contribution requires him to also deny subduction, as one of his core arguments is "We drill for Oil deeper then we've found the deepest fossils".

It is however, trivial to prove that fossils have been buried substantially deepr then we find Crude.

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 03:39 PM

It is however, trivial to prove that fossils have been buried substantially deepr then we find Crude.
No fossil has ever been found as deep as we've found crude.

Trippy

10-27-08, 03:40 PM

How do you explain the fact that Australia and Peru are moving away from eachother?

If the Nazca Plate is subducting why is Peru moving away from Hawaii?

I've already explained this to you - there's two subduction zones, a spreading ridge, and a back arc spreading zone between Australia and Peru.

(Assuming this un-cited, un referenced claim is accurate).

Trippy

10-27-08, 03:41 PM

No fossil has ever been found as deep as we've found crude.

I've already demonstrated this claim false on multiple occasions - or are you denying that high grade fossiliferous marbels require burial to depths at, or greater than we find oil?

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 03:42 PM

I've already explained this to you - there's two subduction zones, a spreading ridge, and a back arc spreading zone between Australia and Peru.
This is uncited and unreferenced. Proving that the alleged subduction just isn't enough to stop the expansion between Australia and Peru.

(Assuming this un-cited, un referenced claim is accurate).
It was cited and referenced but you deliberately chose to ignore it as you always do. Smith, D. E., et al, 1993. "SLR Results from LAGEOS."

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 03:45 PM

I've already demonstrated this claim false on multiple occasions - or are you denying that high grade fossiliferous marbels require burial to depths at, or greater than we find oil?
Uncited and unreferenced as usual. You are lying again. If you had demonstrated that I would be agreeing with you.

pjdude1219

10-27-08, 04:21 PM

Unfortunately personal insults and ad hominem attacks are explicity against forum rules.

while technically not allowed when someone so richly deserves it(like you) it appears leeway is given

OilIsMastery

10-27-08, 05:16 PM

while technically not allowed when someone so richly deserves it(like you) it appears leeway is given
That's called a double standard. Isn't that nice how that works?

Plate tectonics cultists can break any rule they want but I'm held to a higher standard. That's ok, I don't mind being held to a higher standard.

Spud Emperor

10-27-08, 05:36 PM

That's called a double standard. Isn't that nice how that works?

Plate tectonics cultists can break any rule they want but I'm held to a higher standard. That's ok, I don't mind being held to a higher standard.

And, of course, the leeway you're given is because you're a flying nutjob who cannot recognise reality.

They're actually very soft on you.

Trippy

10-27-08, 08:54 PM

This is uncited and unreferenced. Proving that the alleged subduction just isn't enough to stop the expansion between Australia and Peru.

Cherry picking, and misrepresentation.

I didn't just talk about subduction (I've provided maps of the wadati-benioff zone in other threads). I also talked about spreading zones.

And as for proving it, your own map that you've been so keen to flash around proves it, why should I have to prove something, or cite something you've already stated is an unquestionable truth?

Trippy

10-27-08, 08:58 PM

Uncited and unreferenced as usual. You are lying again. If you had demonstrated that I would be agreeing with you.

This probably reads as an ad-hominem, but you should probably book yourself in for a full neurological exam - not only do you appear to have difficulties with basic numeracy and language processing skills, but apparently your short term memory is shocking - and i'll prove it when I get home from work.

In another thread,I provided you with not only photographic evidence that high grade fossiliferous marbles exist, but provided you with a verifiable source that demonstrated the minimum depths that they had to be buried to to acheive this degree of metamorphism.

It's not me who's lying here.

James R

10-27-08, 09:19 PM

OIM's expanding earth argument is dead in the water.

I invite readers to review the Formal Debate we had on that topic in the Formal Debates forum.

Trippy

10-28-08, 05:03 AM

OIM's expanding earth argument is dead in the water.

I invite readers to review the Formal Debate we had on that topic in the Formal Debates forum.

Agreed, but, call it morbid curiosity, I do have a question for him though.

OIM:

How does your 'model' account account for the Pacific plate 'suddenly' changing direction (as indicated by the Hawaiian islands/emperor seamount chain).

Steve100

10-28-08, 05:10 AM

I can't be bothered to read through all this stuff, but I can take a stab in the dark and guess that there is also no proposed reason for any to land masses to come together with an expanding Earth.

Read-Only

10-28-08, 05:54 AM

That's irrelevant to whether it's true or not. Something need not be published in order for it to be true.

But since you can't debate without ad hominem and personal attacks here you go: http://www.johnkharms.com/

Insult him however you like.

Insult him?? You bet !!!!! The guy is a certified kook!!!!

Just look at this statement of his: "Hello Visitor!; My name is John K. Harms and I live in Bastrop, Texas (U. S. A.). Bastrop will be one of the centers (among others) of operations for the expanding sphere outward for the systematic cleaning up of the Earth. Why? Because I was called here and was told that this was how the cleaning up of the Earth would begin. "

"Called here", eh? By whom, exactly??? Mother Earth herself?

That's the kind of talk you only get from fools under a strong delusion!:bugeye:

Walter L. Wagner

10-28-08, 01:12 PM

How does your 'model' account account for the Pacific plate 'suddenly' changing direction (as indicated by the Hawaiian islands/emperor seamount chain).

It doesn't, but I'm sure he'll come up with some 'reason'.

What I don't quite get is what is the purpose of trying to come up with another model [expanding earth] when the existing model is well detailed. Nowhere do they [the proponents of expanding earth] give any kind of mechanism for how the earth supposedly expands. What physics is there that would account for that? None that they have put forth [other than my, and RPenner's brief stabs, which does not account for an expanding earth model].

Trippy

10-28-08, 01:28 PM

It doesn't, but I'm sure he'll come up with some 'reason'.

What I don't quite get is what is the purpose of trying to come up with another model [expanding earth] when the existing model is well detailed. Nowhere do they [the proponents of expanding earth] give any kind of mechanism for how the earth supposedly expands. What physics is there that would account for that? None that they have put forth [other than my, and RPenner's brief stabs, which does not account for an expanding earth model].

Which would be part of the point of asking the question in the first place - namely that I (personally) can see no plausable mechanism for such a thing to happen in his model, ergo...

D H

10-28-08, 01:54 PM

What I don't quite get is what is the purpose of trying to come up with another model [expanding earth] when the existing model is well detailed.
The reason is that geology and cosmology rank right up there with evolution on the wacko christian fundamentalist scientific hit list. Modern biology, geology, and cosmology contradict a narrow-minded, extremely literal reading of the bible -- and therefore modern biology, geology, and cosmology are wrong. If only they didn't do such a good job of explaining life, the universe, and everything ...

OilIsMastery

10-28-08, 02:32 PM

The reason is that geology and cosmology rank right up there with evolution on the wacko christian fundamentalist scientific hit list. Modern biology, geology, and cosmology contradict a narrow-minded, extremely literal reading of the bible -- and therefore modern biology, geology, and cosmology are wrong. If only they didn't do such a good job of explaining life, the universe, and everything ...
Of course the irony is that Christian fundamentalists all believe in plate tectonics because they think the Earth is a constant size, "special" in the universe (only Earth is alleged to have plate tectonics), and designed specifically for us.

WHY DID SCIENTISTS DELUDE THEMSELVES ABOUT SUBDUCTION?

The answer to this question stems partially from ignorance of the first question, but is more directly attributable to the Kant-Laplace (1796) “nebular hypothesis” of Earth’s creation, which at that moment in history had to agree with a fully-formed Earth as suggested by the biblical account of Creation in Genesis.

The nebular hypothesis still remains the most basic and fundamental assumption underlying every scientific discipline dealing with Time, life on Earth, the physical Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe, but, as noted earlier, the nebular hypothesis is not only false, but confirms past surface growth of the planet.

Today’s widespread belief in subduction, the keystone of plate tectonics dogma, can now be recognized as a classic misinterpretation of valid factual evidence by scientists indoctrinated by generations of their professors and the peer review system into believing, literally, that Earth was suddenly created 4.6 billion years ago in its present size, shape and composition, complete with oceans, by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas and dust surrounding the Sun.

That assumption can be refuted in its entirety by known empirical evidence properly interpreted to show an Earth constantly increasing in mass and diameter by constant accretion of extraterrestrial matter AND concurrent expansion of the molten core after reaching spherical shape. Internal core expansion has now become the dominant mechanism in expansion of the planet, greatly exceeding the slow rate of external accretion of matter from outer space.

The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries- old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century.

Link (http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm)

Trippy

10-28-08, 03:38 PM

Agreed, but, call it morbid curiosity, I do have a question for him though.

OIM:

How does your 'model' account account for the Pacific plate 'suddenly' changing direction (as indicated by the Hawaiian islands/emperor seamount chain).

Of course the irony is that Christian fundamentalists all believe in plate tectonics because they think the Earth is a constant size, "special" in the universe (only Earth is alleged to have plate tectonics), and designed specifically for us.

Link (http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm)

Avoiding the question?

OilIsMastery

10-28-08, 03:52 PM

Very easily.

Earth shifts due to excess mass stress tectonics: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm

Now you can answer some questions.

(1) See question you ignored in the opening post.

(2) Why does plate tectonics only exist on planet Earth?

(3) Why is there no subduction in the Atlantic Ocean or along the Atlantic rim?

Trippy

10-28-08, 04:22 PM

Very easily.

Earth shifts due to excess mass stress tectonics: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Excess-mass-stress.htm
No it doesn't - nowhere in EMS is there anything that can account for the change in direction of apparent plate motion. A change in direction requires an acceleration, a force to be applied, something that plate tectonic theory and subduction can easily provide.

Tell me, do you even understand the 'accepted' explanation for this event?

Now you can answer some questions.
Given that you didn't actually answer mine, you talked around it.
An Answer would be something along the lines of "In this paper by stavross, published when ever, he provides this mechanism".

(1) See question you ignored in the opening post.
You mean the one that's already been answered several times - namely that they aren't.
The stretchmarks on Mercury just look like standard crater rays, and your prevarications on Callisto (and Europa for that matter) completely fail to take into account the fact that I under pressure likes to flow.

(2) Why does plate tectonics only exist on planet Earth?
This is blatant mis representation, and i (and others) have addressed this before.
The implied statement "Plate tectonics only exists on earth" is a fallacy, and a misrepresentation. It's also one you've already acknowledged.

Earth is the only planet we observe what we recognize as plate tectonics, but then, we can directly observe the surfaces of 4 planets and half a dozen moons, of those, at least one other planet, and a moon have features suggestive of plate tectonics - i've provided citations discussing compressive features on both Europa and Mars.

And again, we come back to the point that although we've only found evidence of active tectonics on one planet, there's really only one planet that we've been able to observe the surface of in any detail.

(3) Why is there no subduction in the Atlantic Ocean or along the Atlantic rim?

Because Passive margins happens, the atlantic rim is simply one of many examples of passive margins.

I've also explained to you that there is some evidence that suggests that there may be a subduction zone forming in the south atlantic

Not to mention the fact that you're completely ignoring the carribean plate.

OilIsMastery

10-28-08, 05:14 PM

No it doesn't - nowhere in EMS is there anything that can account for the change in direction of apparent plate motion.
Hawaii is not a plate...:rolleyes:

The implied statement "Plate tectonics only exists on earth" is a fallacy, and a misrepresentation.
Why am I not surprised you think peer reviewed science is a fallacy and misrepresentation?

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002

I agree 100%. Plate tectonics is a fallacy and misrepresentation. Also you should edit Wikipedia if you don't already.

Earth is the only planet we observe what we recognize as plate tectonics
As long as you don't include us in your we.

but then, we can directly observe the surfaces of 4 planets and half a dozen moons, of those, at least one other planet, and a moon have features suggestive of plate tectonics - i've provided citations discussing compressive features on both Europa and Mars.

See here, here, and here.

And again, we come back to the point that although we've only found evidence of active tectonics on one planet, there's really only one planet that we've been able to observe the surface of in any detail.
Not according to plate tectonics "scientists". According to plate tectonics "scientists", none of them have plate tectonics.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction), here (http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/faculty/profiles/stern.html), and here (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002).

Because Passive margins happens, the atlantic rim is simply one of many examples of passive margins.
That doesn't make any sense.

I've also explained to you that there is some evidence that suggests that there may be a subduction zone forming in the south atlantic
Where?

Not to mention the fact that you're completely ignoring the carribean plate.
I'm not ignoring it. It's growing also.

Trippy

10-28-08, 06:11 PM

Hawaii is not a plate...:rolleyes:

So now you're saying that the pacific plate doesn't exist? (therefore, if it doesn't exist, it can not be growing).

Or are you perhaps suggesting that the Hawaiian islands aren't in the pacific ocean?

Why am I not surprised you think peer reviewed science is a fallacy and misrepresentation?
This is an outright misrepresentation of my positions, and statements, behaviour you have been warned for publically previously.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002
Again, you're blatantly misrepresenting this paper.

Allow me to elaborate:
Plate tectonics governs the topography and motions of the surface of Earth, and the loss of heat from Earth's interior, but APPEARS to be found uniquely on Earth in the Solar System. Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?

The question in the second sentence is based on the premise that the first sentence is true, however the use of cautious language in the first sentence implies that the author is wishing to aknowledge that the premise of the first sentence may in fact only be a result of an incomplete data set.

These senteneces can be broken down as such:
Observation: "We have so far only found direct evidence of subduction on Earth."
Statement: "Let us assume that this observation represents reality, and is therefore true."
Question: "Why should this be so?"

So eiither you've failed to grasp the subtelties of the language used - which brings us right back to asking if English is your first language - a question you have avoided repeatedly, or you're deliberately and malicously misrepresenting the contents of the article.

Which is it?

I agree 100%. Plate tectonics is a fallacy and misrepresentation. Also you should edit Wikipedia if you don't already.
Again, either you haven't understood what I have said, or you're deliberately and malicously mis representing it, which is it?

As long as you don't include us in your we.
Are yous aying you have direct evidence to the contrary?

Not according to plate tectonics "scientists". According to plate tectonics "scientists", none of them have plate tectonics.

Again, either you've failed to understand what is being said, or you're deliberately and malicously misrepresenting it, again, allow me to illustrate for the mods, and the general viewing public how you're lying.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction),
This article only discusses subduction on earth.
At no point does this article state implicitly, or explicitly that subduction only occurs on earth.
The closest it comes is in the opening sentence which states:
"In geology, a subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates meet and move towards one another..."

Implicitly, the article is talking about the geology of earth, as observed by earth based geologists - this implication is backed up by the fact that Planetary Geology - the study of the geology of other terrestrial planets, has its own article.

The point being that the article states that "In Geology..." not "In planetary Geology..." however, OIM's lie is that because it states "In geology, a subduction zone is an area on Earth..." that the article seeks to imply that subduction only occurs on earth - a logical fallacy and an outright lie.

here (http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/faculty/profiles/stern.html),
A personal opinion, possibly mis-reported by the person that wrote that piece, and i've already explained to you how the word 'observed' may have been implied or assumed in the sentence you're referring to.

and here (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/43/2/002).

Already addressed - you're deliberately and malicously misrepresenting the article.

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does.
The margin between The Americas, and the atlantic, or Eurafrasia and the Atlantic is passive.
These margins are not the only examples of passive margins we have.
Another example includes India and the indian ocean.

Where?
In threads elsewhere (on this forum that is).

I'm not ignoring it. It's growing also.
Right, but subduction occurs between it and the atlantic plate, therefore not all margins of the atlantic ocean are passive.

Orleander

10-28-08, 06:16 PM

...."The apparent widening in diameter and flattening of older craters, is what one would expect to observe, if the exterior crust were slowly stretching. This is a very common observation on all rocky planets. The formation of concentric rings as present on the surfaces of Callisto and Mercury can show the effects of a gradual expansion with time." (Harms 1998)

http://www.johnkharms.com/planetary.htm.
Yeah, you really ought to read his biography
http://www.johnkharms.com/autobiography.htm.

iceaura

10-28-08, 09:31 PM

Much as I hate to see a theory I invented several years ago discredited by implication

( that the expansion of the earth (I provided a mechanism, making my theory far superior to those of the glory grabbers on my coattails) is the best creationist account of the physical facts as given to us by combining Holy Biblical Writ and modern scientific observation )

- it's long past time for all threads on the subject not overtly presented as entertainment to be shelved in pseudoscience.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

10-29-08, 03:43 AM

Well The earths magnetic feild feild is unusual for the mass of the planet. In condsiering the magnetic feild the magnetic feild has been getting weaker which in turn effect the response of material within the sphere of earth and the magnetic feild.
The current magnetic feild is 1,250 to 833 times more power than the effect of the moon. In addition it is demonstrated by feild strength measurements within rocks and pottery that the earths magnetic feild was at one time even stronger.
In a magentic feild material is attracted to the main body of the magnet feild, when the magnetic feild is reduced material slows in its motion towards the magnetic body.

The magnetic feild of earth is strongest at the center and at the outter most edge of the feild, the region between the two points is weaker, it is this weak enviroment that humans live in and conduct test or exsperiments it is currently defined as 0.32 gauss, where the outter edge of the earths magnetic feild is define as 3.0 to 5.0 gauss.
In this case we have several points of magnetic induction, down, up, and along side the earths surface or inbetween and so with that induction material has the same direction of motion, material will either respond upward,downward or inbetween simular to a spinning compass.
Remember that the magnetic feild is 833 time the effect of the moon which is 1/89th of the mass of the earth, the comparison defines ththat the magnetic feild is 9.3 time more powerful than the mass of the earth.
Such predfines that the material of earth is directly under the infulence of the magnetic feild.
If the magnetic feild is weakening then it has less induction effect on material and material is traveling in a new direction. if the magnetic feild is weaking from the center then the material is traveling upward and therfore exspanding.

Mercury is a gas filled planet which has a hard shell 261 miles thick, being simular to a egg. It appears to be a former moon of Venus given its structure... in other words its large gaseous enviroment (light element composition) whish is mostly Nitrogen,Oxygen, Flourine and Neon this is probally staturate with Carbon particles and chemical reactions with the main gases as carbon has a negtive charge in the core of Mercury....CO2 a major componet

Mercury is 52% gas and 47% soild material by composition ( Mercury as a former moon of venus results in a dramatic increase in mercurys carbon content shifting the balance to a predominet solid material body rather than gaseous).

The major element of the internal enviroment of Mercury is Nitrogen. Nitrogen has the higest exspansion rate of all atomic elements and so you can exspect pressure variations on the planet Mercury.

I would post a diagram that shoes basic structure configuration but the web site does not have a way to upload diagrams other than by a shadow web site or host.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Read-Only

10-29-08, 04:05 AM

DwayneD.L.Rabon

10-29-08, 04:30 AM

Readonly, you learn so much from me that you hate your self, you have a bad case of jealousy.

Whats worse is you can not even fiond your way around town.

HA,HA,HA, your such a dog.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 03:57 PM

A bizarre spider shape has been discovered on the surface of Mercury during the first flyby of the planet by NASA's Messenger spacecraft. The discovery of the spider – which is unlike anything seen elsewhere in the solar system – was announced on Wednesday along with other results from the historic pass. ...

One of the biggest surprises from the close encounter was a strange spider-shaped feature near the centre of a huge impact scar called Caloris basin. The spider shape is formed by a set of troughs that crisscross to form polygonal shapes at the spider's centre and also radiate outwards.

Stretch marks

"We have seen a number of impact basins in the solar system – we have never, ever seen anything like this in the centre of any of them, and it's fair to say that we haven't seen any features like this elsewhere on Mercury or on the Moon," says mission member Louise Prockter of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, US.

The troughs appear to be stretch marks called extensional faults – troughs formed as a result of part of the surface expanding.

Link (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13257)

Read it and weep...:bawl:

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:10 PM

OIM, again, shows himself to be a low-life liar.

He omits the words that immediately follow in the quote above, which are: "The expansion may have occurred when volcanic activity injected material below the surface in the area, or when the surface rebounded after being pushed down by impacts."

There's no evidence, whatever, to indicate that the planet itself is undergoing homogeneous or uniform expansion. Instead, what the article implies is a localized or regionalized expansion due to one or two very specific causes.

OIM's omission of these words is intentional and duplicitous since they do not fit with his preconceived conclusion(s).

This sort of behavior is characteristic of pseudoscience proponents who lack intellectual honesty and/or are victims of the self-delusions they've constructed within the mental frameworks that support their beliefs.

The intellectual dishonesty added to the deception supports my alliterative accusation of "low-life liar." I mention this since, while OIM frequently engages in ad hominem remarks and comments -some overt, some subtle (like his juvenile smiley above)- he whines and cries (again, like the juvenile smiley above) when someone criticizes his nonsense or even the nutbars he likes to quote (i.e. the idiot with the "expanding earth" website).

But let's carry on and digest more of OIM's link. It was, after all, a fair reporting of real science -completely opposite of what OIM is attempting to do with his nutbar claim of "expanding earth."

A 40-kilometre crater sits near the centre of the radiating troughs. "What isn't clear is what is the relationship of that crater to the radial trough complex," Prockter says. "Did it help to form some or all of the troughs? Did it simply impact serendipitously at the bull's-eye?" In the quote just above, the NS article is reporting on a very probable cause for the troughs: the impact evident by the remaining crater. They rightly acknowledge that there could be other causes, noting that the impact could have been coincidental to the troughs instead of causative. But it is still a localized phenomenon, not a planet-wide one that would be necessary to support OIM's nutty claim.

Also, what of the age of the formation? If OIM's "planetary expansion" nonsense is right (a gigantic "if"), then wouldn't the planet still be undergoing this "expansion?" After all, OIM has said that the "expansion of the universe" is evidence for his nutty claim. Let's read the next quote:

More importantly, its age has now been determined by counting the number of smaller craters that have pummelled it since it formed. It appears to have formed between 3.8 and 3.9 billion years ago, during a period of intense bombardment that also formed large craters on the Moon.It occurred over 3 billion years ago!

Pseudoscience nuts are very good at cherry-picking not only quotes but science in general. They want to use science to support their delusions, nonsense, nutbar thoughts, and crackpot "theories," but they ignore any scientific data or results that are not supportive of the conclusions they started out with. This is dishonest and its deceptive.

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 04:11 PM

There is no evidence for plate tectonics on Venus; no mid-ocean rifts, no subduction trenches. ... but it does show a large number of ``stretch marks'', as displayed in the image below.

Link (http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes_venus.htm)

:bawl:

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:18 PM

Link (http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes_venus.htm)

Not a peer-reviewed or serious link nor does the "author" cite any sources or provide any data, so none need bother. Its probably a nutbar.

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 04:21 PM

Not a peer-reviewed or serious link nor does the "author" cite any sources or provide any data, so none need bother. Its probably a nutbar.
You deliberately ignore the peer-reviewed papers which say the same so I fail to see your point.

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:22 PM

You deliberately ignore the peer-reviewed papers which say the same so I fail to see your point.

Which peer-reviewed papers are you claiming I ignored?

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 04:23 PM

Which peer-reviewed papers are you claiming I ignored?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068557&postcount=67

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:32 PM

Right. Linking to others works doesn't equate to those works supporting you.

You actually have to show that they do and Trippy debunked your fallacious attempt to utilize (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068586&postcount=68) quote-mined and misrepresented work as supporting a crackpot claim.

So, all you've done is show yourself to be a liar. Again.

Trippy

11-01-08, 04:33 PM

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068557&postcount=67

Oh right, so your lambasting Skinwalker for ignoring a post that was addressed to me, which I thoroughly addressed, and demonstrated how you were blatantly lying?

Are you really sure you want to bring that back up?

Trippy

11-01-08, 04:38 PM

Link (http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes_venus.htm)

:bawl:

Not a peer-reviewed or serious link nor does the "author" cite any sources or provide any data, so none need bother. Its probably a nutbar.

What I think is really funny about this is that on the same page, the same Author says this:

There is evidence, however, that the mantle of Venus is undergoing convection (or that it has done so in the past). Some surface features on Venus are the direct result of convective motions in the mantle. Coronae are large dome-shaped bulges in the crust of Venus, created when a rising plume of hot lava in the mantle shoves upward on the crust above it. Wrinkled mountains are created when convection in the mantle compresses a region of the crust. The crust is shoved together into folds. Fractures are created when convection in the mantle stretches a region of the crust apart. The soft and stretchy crust doesn't pull apart in a single deep wide rift, as the Earth's brittle crust would do, but it does show a large number of ``stretch marks'', as displayed in the image below.

He's saying that there is no evidence of plate tectonics as we recognize it, because the heat (and pressure) at the surface are enough to soften the lithosphere, so you get evenly distributed features, instead of the lithosphere breaking up.

So, OIM's own source contradicts him and shows how he's lying.

(Incidentally, this is precisely the point I have raised previously discussing tectonics and geology on Venus).

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 04:47 PM

What I think is really funny about this is that on the same page, the same Author says this:

He's saying that there is no evidence of plate tectonics as we recognize it, because the heat (and pressure) at the surface are enough to soften the lithosphere, so you get evenly distributed features, instead of the lithosphere breaking up.

So, OIM's own source contradicts him and shows how he's lying.

(Incidentally, this is precisely the point I have raised previously discussing tectonics and geology on Venus).

What I think is really funny is you totally ignore everything else I posted to fucus on the only parts that comply with your primitive 20th century religion.

Trippy

11-01-08, 04:51 PM

What I think is really funny is you totally ignore everything else I posted to fucus on the only parts that comply with your primitive 20th century religion.

Liar.

As far as I can recall, in this thread, I have addressed the original post, every post that you have directed to, and by far the vast majority of links that you have included in posts addressed to me.

if there's a post in this thread that you think I should have addressed, then provide a link to it, and an explanation why you think I should have addressed it, and i'll consider it.

Back up your accusations with rational justifications, or quit yer griping.

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 04:53 PM

Liar.

As far as I can recall, in this thread, I have addressed the original post, every post that you have directed to, and by far the vast majority of links that you have included in posts addressed to me.

if there's a post in this thread that you think I should have addressed, then provide a link to it, and an explanation why you think I should have addressed it, and i'll consider it.

Back up your accusations with rational justifications, or quit yer griping.
What part of "There is no evidence for plate tectonics on Venus; no mid-ocean rifts, no subduction trenches" don't you understand?

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:54 PM

Trippy mentioned nothing about religion... what are you on about? Moreover, you've not said a word that is supportive; you've failed to support many wild, speculative and outright bullshit claims; you rely on nutbars and crackpots and cherry-pick scientific documents and texts, taking their words completely out of context.

Before anyone can even begin to take you seriously, you would first need to reconcile these problems in the presentation of your weak and failing attempt at discourse and either 1) publicly apologize, show some humility and ask for some help in learning to present your opinions and how to go about learning some critical thinking skills; or 2) go away with your tail between your legs.

I'm betting, however, that you'll choose option 3), which is to continue on in a state of delusion pretending that no one has uttered a single word that is successfully critical of your nutty claims.

For those interested, I updated my earlier post in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2073648&postcount=75) where OIM dishonestly quote-mines a science magazine, omitting data and information that is contradictory to his nutty claim(s).

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 04:57 PM

What part of "There is no evidence for plate tectonics on Venus; no mid-ocean rifts, no subduction trenches" don't you understand?

Trippy, this is both a straw man and a red herring.

OIM is attempting to deflect his exposure as a liar and a cheat.

@OIM, you should first correct your previous failings in this thread before requiring others to move on to new arguments. By going to new arguments, are you conceding that you've engaged in deceptive and amoral presentation of your weak and failed attempt at discourse?

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 05:05 PM

OIM began this thread by claiming that the two photos below were "stretch marks." Nothing in OIM's posts have presented evidence of this claim and he has engaged in pseudoscientific, intellectually dishonest, and deceptive tactics to pursue an extraordinary but nutty claim.

Topic: How does plate tectonics explain stretch marks on planets (e.g. Mercury) and moons (e.g. Callisto) that have no plate tectonics?

Below: Mercury's Stretch Marks

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/CW0131775256F_Kuiper_Crater.png/600px-CW0131775256F_Kuiper_Crater.png

As already shown by the very article (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13257) you presented as supporting evidence, these aren't marks caused by uniform or homogeneous planetary expansion but by either impact or localized volcanic activity over 3 billion years ago.

Below: Valhalla Crater (Callisto)

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/ImJupiter/callist2.gif

"The apparent widening in diameter and flattening of older craters, is what one would expect to observe, if the exterior crust were slowly stretching. This is a very common observation on all rocky planets. The formation of concentric rings as present on the surfaces of Callisto and Mercury can show the effects of a gradual expansion with time." (Harms 1998)

And I debunked the claim that this photo was "stretch marks" in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2066076&postcount=13) in which I cited peer-reviewed sources that mathematically demonstrate the physics involved in creating the concentric rings of grabens by impact.

To conclude, OIM has shown no evidence of "planetary expansion" versus normal tectonic activity either in formative stages of the planetary body or later volcanic/impact events.

Trippy

11-01-08, 05:14 PM

What part of "There is no evidence for plate tectonics on Venus; no mid-ocean rifts, no subduction trenches" don't you understand?

Skinwalker is correct, this is both a strawman and a red herring.

I understand the quote, but unlike you, I understand the quote in the context of the article.

You have completely missed what the article is saying.

The surface conditions on venus are 700k, 9MPa

On Earth, this is the equivalent of a depth of about 30 km, at this depth, the earth is capable of plastic flow, under appropriate stress/strain regimes.

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Thomas/lteng/engeimg/enge0334b.JPG

What the article is saying, is that tectonics as we know it requires a thin brittle crust, but venus has a thick, plastic crust, so no tectonics is observed, nut we do, however observe evidence of mantle circulation, either active, or in the past.

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 05:15 PM

A question is not a straw man argument.

Trippy

11-01-08, 05:24 PM

A question is not a straw man argument.
We've already had this discussion as well. A question can be a strawman argument.

OilIsMastery

11-01-08, 05:32 PM

A question can be a strawman argument.
A question cannot be considered an argument.

Trippy

11-01-08, 05:37 PM

A question cannot be considered an argument.

You've obviously never studied debating or philosophy.

I've already demonstrated how every question has an associated implied statement, and that implied statement is based one a falsehood or fallacy, then the qiestion must also be a falsehood or fallacy.

Equally, in your case, your question questions something that resembles, but is not my argument, therefore meets the criteria of a strawman.

rpenner

11-01-08, 05:52 PM

Hey, Trippy, have you stopped winning this debate yet?

SkinWalker

11-01-08, 09:15 PM

A question cannot be considered an argument.

You truly are ignorant. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but making ignorant statements like this after you've already been corrected only serves to further the ignorance.

But lets humor you: why can't a question be an argument?

Trippy

11-02-08, 12:22 AM

Hey, Trippy, have you stopped winning this debate yet?

Apparently not.

OilIsMastery

11-02-08, 12:29 AM

Acording to Webster's, an "argument" is "a reason given in a proof or rebuttle" or "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion." A question is neither of those. A question is "an act of asking."

DwayneD.L.Rabon

11-02-08, 01:01 AM

Well, i will say this much all exspansion and contraction that occurs in the solar system is a result of cosmological motion.

Most motion of contraction or exspansion within our solar is a direct result of our local group of stars, those stars which are our closest neighbors.

If you have small regions on planetary bodies that appear as exspansions or contractions the most likly cause would be the effect of a Red Dwarf Star for example Barnards Star. this does not rule out events of asteroid strikes ect...

Our star the sun is traveling through the Galaxy with other stars, stars that exist within our local group of stars have different velocities over time the gravitional compression of or local group changes and so compression within the solar system changes. Sudden chnages result in features of sharp contrast.

Also you should take the time to reflext on the fact that asteroid strikes are correlated to gravitonal interaction of stars with a given body or solar system. This conpounds the ablltiy to directly identify the surface feature, as either asteroid, collison, or gravitional effect of a given star.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Read-Only

11-02-08, 02:12 AM