Planetary Stretch Marks: More Evidence For Expansion Tectonics

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 quote-mined and misrepresented work as supporting a crackpot claim.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

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 where OIM dishonestly quote-mines a science magazine, omitting data and information that is contradictory to his nutty claim(s).

 

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?

 

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.

As already shown by the very article 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.

And I debunked the claim that this photo was "stretch marks" in this post 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.

 

A question is not a straw man argument.

 

A question cannot be considered an argument.

 

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

 

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?

 

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."

 

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

 

Rabon, you don't even have a clue!!! All of those things - except direct strikes by asteriods, meteorites - are WAY to distant to affect anything!!

(Just more Rabon garbage from Rabon The Garbage Man (kid).):bugeye: