The Expansion Tectonics of Europa

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

:shrug:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v19n1a3.php

http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112566.htm

Read it and weep...:bawl:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trippy, the reason why I make mistakes is because I don't know everything there is to know about the universe like you do. I'm not omniscient like you. I'm not perfect and infallible like you are. I'm human and I'm still learning how the world works through observation and future observations. I don't have a time machine, a crystal ball, and x-ray vision like you do. And I cannot predict the future like you can. If only I was like you I would never have to read or consider new scientific observations because I would know everything already. Please forgive me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean you don't know everything about the universe?

 

Glad to hear we're on the same page.

 

Ah raspberries, I missed out on this one.

I see OIM is accusing Trippy of the same things many people accuse me of, omniscience. They fail to realise that there's a difference between "I know everything", which neither Trippy or I claim, and "I know a lot about this area, a lot more than you".

This mistake arises because whether we be omniscient or just very knowledgable in physics, it means that 99 times out of 100 we can easily give a valid answer to a question a person who is not very knowledgeable will ask. And if we so desire, the other 1 time in 100 we can make an answer up which is sufficiently wordy or complicated to make it seem like we know, but both Trippy and I admit when we don't know the answer.

Pick an area outside things like physics (and in Trippy's case chemistry) and we'll show a lot more ignorance. Who was King of France in 1742? Well Google will tell me but I don't know. What was the geopolitical landscape which lead to the 100 years war? No idea. What made Pauli predict the existence of the neutrino? Well now I'm on 'home turf' and I can tell you, in great detail, the physics and the history of that physics. Why? Because I spent many months and years learning the physics and the history was taught along with it, in part, and the rest of the history I've learnt from books I've read on the topic and discussions I've had with other physicists.

But people like OIM don't see that. They just see someone who is able to show them wrong at every turn using knowledge and learning. And given such people as OIM (and Kaneda, to name another) cannot accept they know nothing about a topic they have never done anything more than Google for, they reach the conclusion that we, the correctors, must be wrong. But when are we wrong? Well in OIM and Kaneda's opinion, always. Not that they can show that. Not that they look at books which we've read and the evidence in support of such things.

 

I beg to differ. You are desperately trying to remain as ignorant as possible by ignoring observations and by casting aspersions on anyone who knows more than you.

 

Since you're a physics expert, perhaps you can tell us why the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits biogenic petroleum origin and why the laws of physics physically prevent the oceanic crust from subducting underneath the continental crust.

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

 

Doesn't load.

Simple, they don't.

/edit

I just read his 'subduction's flaw' nonsense. He seems to be ignoring that the expansions of the Pacific and Atlantic plates (well, the addition to the relevent plates in the mid-Atlantic and around the Pacific Basin) isn't contradictory, it's the reason things like the Andes and the Rockies exist! Push an ocean plate and a continental plate together and the ocean one goes under and the continental goes over and gets 'scrunched up', forming mountains. We see it in N. America, S. America and in Nepal. India is on a different plate from China and millions of years ago India was an 'Australia' in the middle of what we now call the Indian Ocean. It then hit China (in/on the main Asian plate) and you get even more 'scrunching' because you have continental+continental, once the small amount of ocean crust around India was destroyed by, wait for it, subduction!

My God, didn't you even take high school geography?

This crackpot?

Simply quoting someone else doesn't make you right. You need to provide the evidence they provide. Otherwise I could say 'God exists' and use as my evidence the ~2 billion people on Earth's views and comments. Am I therefore right? What if I say 'God doesn't exist' and quote the hundreds of millions of atheists on Earth? Am I therefore right?

In either case, I should say why I agree with them, citing evidence. Where's the 'irrefutable evidence' Myers is right? Nowhere. He thinks that the fact S. America and Africa join is 'irrefutable evidence' for the Earth expanding. Wrong, since dynamic plate tectonics explains the same evidence and gives a very different view. So the evidence isn't 'irrefutable' if it's got multiple interpretations. That's by definition.

And as I said in another thread where you quoted Myers, why is he calling himself a cryptologist and a geophysicist. Aside from the fact he's clearly neither, those are two VERY different areas. I'd call myself a mathematician/physicist because what I do is mathematical methods in physics. Some people call themselves biochemists. They do the biological applications of chemistry. Cryptology and geophysics are very much seperate. Myers seems to think he's a master of two areas, when he's not even a student in one.

And you have repeatedly demonstrated you do not wish to learn physics, chemistry or geology, terrestrial or otherwise. In the many months I've been here you've demonstrate no learning, no understanding and no wish to change that. Many people who have degrees, post graduate qualifications and even years (if not decades) of experience in various areas relevent to your claims have corrected you, you ignore them all.

Tell me, what books on geology, physics or chemistry are you currently reading? If you are truely interested in this stuff, you must be reading something other than the internet. I can name a dozen books in theoretical physics I have looked through or read in the last 6 weeks (and I've been on holiday for 4 of those!), hence why I can honestly say I'm actively learning theoretical physics, my main area of discussion/interest. What about you? And remember, any book you claim you have, I can easily get ahold of (ah, the joys of a university library) and quiz you on so don't just think a quick Amazon.com search will help you.

 

Works fine for everyone I know.

 

It works when I go through Google, but not the direct link from your post.

Do you have a link to the journal it is published in? Because anyone can type up a very short paper on such things. Also, the thing you link to is not something a physics student would do, it's much more a chemistry thing and I'm sure Trippy has already been through it with you and he has many years experience, as well as a very good education, in chemistry.

And good job on ignoring the rest of my post. I explain why Myers is a crackpot, you offer no retort. I explain why his 'it's irrefutable' is so obviously wrong even a child can see that, you offer no retort. I (as well as D H) explain that you show no knowledge in these things and no sign of trying to gain knowledge, you offer no retort. I ask you to give me a few (heck, even one will do) books you are currently reading which would demonstrate you are trying to expand your knowledge in the areas of physics, chemistry and geology, you offer no answer.

What's the matter, are you unable to answer a simple question like "What makes you think you have any understanding of physics or chemistry or geology?". Could it be that all you do is go to websites which have the same view as you and just copy and paste their arguments? I could copy and paste Wikipedia articles into my posts on physics but I don't. Why? Because it would seem like I don't understand the topic and can only do a quick "Search and paste". It seems that's all you're capable of. You have formed an opinion which is based on ignorance and, as DH says, you try desperately to maintain that ignorance by avoiding anything which is science and just going to sites you know will say what you want to hear.

If you are so sure you're right, you'd read mainstream books on physics, chemistry and geology so that you could 'beat us at our own game'. Noone is going to convince me quantum mechanics is inconsistent by posting their pet theory. They'll convince me if they learn quantum mechanics well enough to be able to use it to show its own inconsistency.

So until you can show us you have even high school level of those topics, taking the attitude that us 'experts' (which none of us are claiming to be) should be ignored or are immediately and consistently wrong is just showing how delusional and detached from the scientific method you are.

 

No. But if you rely upon the appeal to authority fallacy as the sole criteria for truth you can try the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

Interesting but very irrelevant to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the expansion tectonics of Europa.

 

I'm not. And your sole justification is a crank who can be shown incorrect by a high school students and anyone whose even heard of plate tectonics. If the fact Africa and S. America fit together has any explaination other than "The Earth is expanding!" his evidence isn't irrefutable. And drifting tectonics are an alternative explanation.

You posted a thread about how the Earth collects matter from meteorites and comets. The Earth has a mass of \(M_{E} = 6 \times10^{24}\) kilos. Myers thinks the Earth has gained 40% of that mass somehow, thus expanding. That's \(2.4 \times10^{24}\) kilos. Over 4.5 billion years that's about \(5.3 \times 10^{14}\) kilos a year. Continually. No evidence at all. I think we'd notice 1.4 billion tons falling to Earth every day. And we'd measure it.

The dynamics between the Sun, Earth and Moon would be so altered by that change in mass, we'd find huge evidence of it in things like fossils, since life is very sensitive to length of seasons and years.

You and your citations have yet to demonstrate any understanding of that or plate tectonics.

And you're still ignoring my question on where else you are learning about these things. Are you afraid to admit you don't learn about this other than going to sites you know will agree with you?

 

I'm pretty sure Samuel Warren Carey understood plate tectonics.

"I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

 

Desperately clinging to bits of old wood, are we?

Does Mr Carey have an alternative explanation for orogenies, say the obvious evidence that an ancient one in Nth America, matches up geochemically, and isotopically (i.e. it's the same age) as the trans-Antarctic orogeny? How come they're separated by thousands of km of ocean?

 

Maybe you should read Carey and make an attempt at answering those questions. Then you might understand expansion tectonics.

 

Oh the hypocrisy!

Maybe you should read some physics, chemistry and geology. The fact I've repeatedly asked you to say what you are reading relevent to those things and you have ignored the question proves you aren't reading anything related to those, in terms of mainstream models and concepts.

And yet you have the ignorant and foolishness to tell others to read up on things you talk about.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR YOUR SILENCE WILL BE TAKEN AS AN ADMISSION YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE

Are you reading any mainstream books, lecture notes or published papers/journals on chemistry, physics or geology relevant to your claims? If so, what?