Planetary Stretch Marks: More Evidence For Expansion Tectonics

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Oct 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 4 of 6
  1. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    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...
     
    Trippy, Oct 28, 2008
    #61

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. D H

    D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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 ...
     
    D H, Oct 28, 2008
    #62

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    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
     
    OilIsMastery, Oct 28, 2008
    #63

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890

    Avoiding the question?
     
    Trippy, Oct 28, 2008
    #64
  8. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    OilIsMastery, Oct 28, 2008
    #65
  9. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    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?


    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".

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Trippy, Oct 28, 2008
    #66
  10. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Hawaii is not a plate...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.

    As long as you don't include us in your we.

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

    See here, here, and here.

    That doesn't make any sense.

    Where?

    I'm not ignoring it. It's growing also.
     
    OilIsMastery, Oct 28, 2008
    #67
  11. Trippy

    Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    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?


    This is an outright misrepresentation of my positions, and statements, behaviour you have been warned for publically previously.

    Again, you're blatantly misrepresenting this paper.

    Allow me to elaborate:
    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?

    Again, either you haven't understood what I have said, or you're deliberately and malicously mis representing it, which is it?

    Are yous aying you have direct evidence to the contrary?


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    In threads elsewhere (on this forum that is).

    Right, but subduction occurs between it and the atlantic plate, therefore not all margins of the atlantic ocean are passive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
    Trippy, Oct 28, 2008
    #68
  12. Orleander

    Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    http://www.johnkharms.com/planetary.htm.
    Yeah, you really ought to read his biography
    http://www.johnkharms.com/autobiography.htm.
     
    Orleander, Oct 28, 2008
    #69
  13. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
     
    iceaura, Oct 29, 2008
    #70
  14. DwayneD.L.Rabon

    DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
    DwayneD.L.Rabon, Oct 29, 2008
    #71
  15. Read-Only

    Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just more worthless garbage from the garbage kid.:bugeye:
     
    Read-Only, Oct 29, 2008
    #72
  16. DwayneD.L.Rabon

    DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    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
     
    DwayneD.L.Rabon, Oct 29, 2008
    #73
  17. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Link

    Read it and weep...:bawl:
     
    OilIsMastery, Nov 1, 2008
    #74
  18. SkinWalker

    SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    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."

    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:

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2008
    SkinWalker, Nov 1, 2008
    #75
  19. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Link

    :bawl:
     
    OilIsMastery, Nov 1, 2008
    #76
  20. SkinWalker

    SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    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.
     
    SkinWalker, Nov 1, 2008
    #77
  21. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You deliberately ignore the peer-reviewed papers which say the same so I fail to see your point.
     
    OilIsMastery, Nov 1, 2008
    #78
  22. SkinWalker

    SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Which peer-reviewed papers are you claiming I ignored?
     
    SkinWalker, Nov 1, 2008
    #79
  23. OilIsMastery

    OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    OilIsMastery, Nov 1, 2008
    #80
Page 4 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page