The Expansion Tectonics of Europa

They look like they're far from a perfect match to me, however, I imagine that it has something to do with a series of terranes that accreted on the west coast of the US, that at one time lay between North America and whatever was west of it.

Do I have link? Not currently, I did come across one, but I didn't book mark it (apparently).

It also probably has something to do with the fact that at various times (although, not neccessarily at the same time) various parts of Asia have been in contact with North America, so yeah, Plate tectnoics predicts it.

It's a nothing. All it actually means, according to plate tectonic theory, is that at some point parts of asia were in contact with parts of north america.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/550.jpg

I thought the answer to this would have been obvious - For example, Mars has already cooled to the point where it can no longer support tectonics as we recognize it. In fact, the crust has thickened to the point where it can support a Volcano 27km high.

As far as Mars goes, it's (arguably) somewhat artificial - there was an article in the June 2008 issue of Nature suggestign the Martian dichotomy may be as a result of an impact.

Plate tectonics has been put forward as another possible explanation with Olympus mons, and the rather straight line of volcanoes associated with it being compared to the Japanese arc.

Here's a paper that outlines evidence for martian subduction:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4100262

I did have another one, but I seem to have accidentally deleted it (or my daughter did).

There's a range of explanations for this, for example, if you look at the moon, the highlands represent the older, lower density crust, and the lowlands represent younger, denser flood basalts.

What's so hard abotu this to understand, that lower density solids float higher in a liquid, then higher density ones.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Nobody is claiming this. And if you actually think about what i've said, that Earth is simply the only planet we have observed active tectonics on - this is a vastly different statement from some of what's being put forward on this board.

You may be, but i'm not.

Which is why it's OIM that has been the first person to start handing out abuse each, and every time.

The point you're missing is that, at this time, there is significant amounts of evidence to support the idea of subduction.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence of an expanding earth, and the analysis that I have seen appears to contradict this.

I have elsewhere, for example, provided evidence supporting the existence of Wadati Bennioff zones, and oceanic crust substantialy older then OIM's rantings allow.

Meanwhile, OIM invokes theories that contradict each other, and him, that require specific circumstances, and claims to have sufficient knowledge of the surface of Venus, Mars, Europa, Ganymede, and every other extra solar planet, to completely rule out any form of crustal recycling ever.

And you're calling me judgemental for calling him out on his nonsense?

The difference between us is that he's already made up his mind that i'm closed minded (as have, apparently you) because I have thus far failed to be convinced by any of the evidence presented so far.

(Why should I accept a video on faith that contains factual inaccuracies, or papers and articles that reference the 'lost continent of Mu' and claim that the Eocene ended 24,000 years ago?)

 

This is funny, given that for a long time you insulted me, and I did not respond what so ever, then I began questioning your literacy and numeracy skills based on your interpretations of posts and articles - an action I justified at the time, until finally I snapped and suggested you crawl out of your trailer park.

I've called you an idiot, and a liar, and have been able to at least prove/justify some of those comments.

Meanwhile, you have repeatedly stated or implied that I am an illiterate religous fundamentalist living in a cave, who's actions are comparable to those of Al Qaeda, all the while lying about your articles and the posts of others.

Not only does this sentence not make any sense, it contradicts itself as well.

Simply denying it's existence doesn't make it false. You still haven't explained the trends in earth quake depths observed under oceanic trenches.

The first link contains many misconceptions, and false assumptions, the second I will look at when I have more time.

[/quote]

We've had this discussion before.

Tell me, what would you expect to see on this map if there were subduction?

 

Blatant lie - I have not stated any such thing about cold fusion, only that it isn't currently an accepted part of mainstream science.

Blatant lie - I have not stated any such thing, only that YOU have only managed to produce one paper which suggests how more reliable experiments confirming cold fusion might be carried out.

This contains two blatant lies.

1. Blatant lie: I did not claim that Comic book artists have no credibility, merely pointed out that Neal Adams had no formal qualificiations in Geology.
2. Blatant lie: I claimed that Neal Adams work had no credibility because it contains substantial inaccuracies.

Blatant lie: I did not claim that Hydrocarbons were formed only twice in the history of the earth. At no point have I stated how often or when I think that hydrocarbons were formed. At no point have I stated by what mechanism I think they are formed.

I am of the opinion that the evidence we currently have supports active tectonics on earth, yes. But as for believing in an encyclopedia of fake made up continents? That's a blatant mis representation, I accept the evidence of there having been multiple super continents in the past - at least some of which you have accepted in accepting the map that you keep posting.

Blatant lie - that's not the only problem that I've raised with that article.

Another blatant lie, i'm not afraid of addressing anything. This is pure supposition on your part - and the link you've provided 404's.

Blatant lie. If your arguments weren't based on red herrings and straw men, I wouldn't be able to point them out.

Wow, you don't believe in Eurafrasia (Eurasia and Africa)?

Better contact those map makers then, and explain to them how/why they've got it wrong.

 

As has already been explained to you, there is no oceanic trench between Africa and India.

The african (and Indian) margins are passive, and there lies a spreading rdige between them.

No magic flying carpets involved.

 

Apparently you failed to understand the question the first time round, so let me restate it.

"So what [evidence] would you expect to see on that map if subduction were occuring?"

See, again, you fail to grasp the simple implication of the sentence, or yolu're deliberately ignoring context.

Should I stop assuming that English is your first language?

 

Once again, provide proof, or concede your error.

 

So what you're saying then is that Zircon dating is only accurate when it supports your case?

 

The 'imaginary continents' you keep referring to are based on the exact same evidence as sea floor spreading - paleomagnetism and zircon dating.

So if you accept paleomagnetism and zircon data as being valid, then you must also accept that at some point in the past, the 'Old Red' continent must have existed (for example).