The Expansion Tectonics of Europa

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by OilIsMastery, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    It's a straw man because noone claimed the solar system is the universe.

    You're illiterate because you don't know how to read the word space.

    And you're a joke because you rely upon strawmen arguments. I would too if I was arguing for plate tectonics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Alpha Numeric I have one question for you please.

    How do you explain all the spread zones on Europa when are clearly no subduction zones?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You asked where your post lied. Your post said that mainstream physics claimed the Earth was the only planet in the universe with tectonics. Your own quote of mainstream physics said 'solar system', not universe.

    So you're the one who misread 'solar system' as 'universe'.
    You said "Earth is the only planet in the universe with subduction zones.". Immediately after which you quote "but appears to be found uniquely on Earth in the Solar System. Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth?".

    Notice how you quote 'solar system', not 'universe'. And yet you claim I'm the illiterate one!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    21st Century science.

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16415723

    EndLightEnd, OIM.

    You are, of course, both no doubt aware that all faults contain elements of strike slip and dip slip motion?

    So... Just because we haven't found any obvious subduction zones yet on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't vertical motion, and recycling of crust?

    I assume that you're also both aware that in the last 12 months there has been at least one paper published suggesting that the combination of water and a thin crust for tectonics, as we observe it, to occur.

    I'm also going to point out that there's one word that's implied in OIM's quote, even though it's not explicitly stated, and that is the word observed.

    "Earth is the only planet [observed] with plate tectonics."

    The word space in this context also does not explicitly, or implicitly mean the universe as a whole.

    Even it did, it's irrelevant any.

    So what? Earth is the only planet in the universe we observe active plate tectonics/subduction zones.

    Big deal. We've observed the surfaces of what 3 other planets and maybe half a dozen moons thought to be capable of vulcanism, or this sort of activity?

    Of which, how many of these planets have a thin crust with liquid water on it?

    Oh right, just one.

    Try and keep just a little perspective - it generally helps.
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Not to mention the fact that if you actually take the time to do the research, there's plenty of evidence of compressional/convergent features on Europa, so really, the justifications for this (OIM's) idea have no merit.
     
  9. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Ad hoc nonsense that is completely unintelligible to the average person.

    No. I'm not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.

    Tell that to the plate tectonics scientists who say there is no subduction or recycling on Europa.

    Asssuming is what lead you to believe in subduction, plate tectonics, and fossil fuel. Link please.

    You care about observations all of the sudden?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    LOL. Yeah so I guess God made the Earth magical after all. What a miracle.

    Granted. Point taken. But subduction is still a joke.
     
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    So your logic is "I don't understand it, so it's wrong!"

    And Myer's 'work' is ad hoc BS.
    And we're back to what I first said in this thread, just because we are much more educated than you in something doesn't mean we think we know it all. You're the one making claims about how you know more than the entirety of educated scientists when you know nothing about a topic. Like subduction.
    Do they say 'We haven't found any' or do they say 'It's categorically impossible'. Please quote them, don't paraphrase them.
    He didn't say that. The Earth is unique in many of our observations, for instance it's the only planet observed with life on it. Few scientists think it's the only one with life on it, we just haven't found any other YET.
    No. We're not aware of everything like you are. You should try doubting some time.
     
  11. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it. Here it is again, an answer would be nice.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Why? Because you don't understand it? Or because it implies you're wrong?

    All it does is talk about observational results relating to Europa.

    We've already had this disucssion you passive aggressive dishonest illiterate hack.

    I am not, and have not claimed to be aware of 'everything'.

    Tell me something. Are you admitting that you're ignorant of even introductory Geology?

    I thought you said you grew up in California?

    I'm fairly confident that you'll find that the majority of people who cliam there is no crustal recycling going on on Europa are fundamenally opposed to subduction, afterall, the main stream accepts the evidence that the surface of Europa is relatively young.

    I've already stated that this is a wrong assumption on your part. What were my exact words? That I was of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to support the theory?

    The difference between us is that I have actually looked into it, where as you have admitted you're ignorant of even the basics.

    Pure speculation on your part, at no point have I stated or implied that I 'believe' in fossil fuels (If I had, you would have quoted me last time I asked you to prove this statement). What I have done however, is demonstrate how your arguments have been, by and large, based in lies, fallacies, ignorance, and factually inaccurate articles.

    Link please.
    Here's a citation: Diana Valencia, Richard J. O'Connell, and Dimitar D. Sasselov “Inevitability of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths” The Astrophysical Journal, volume 670, part 2 (2007)

    If you're genuinely interested, go find a copy of the article yourself.

    I don't recall if it's explicitly stated in the article, but it's very definitely implied.

    Don't be an ass.
    Congratulations on missing the point entirely.

    Congratulations on quoting me out of context yet again what's especially amusing about the first part is the last part - that you concede the point, that at this point the earth seems special because we're working from an inherently limited data set.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Maybe you missed it, maybe you ignored it, but here's my point again.

    Just because we have not observed what we recognize as subduction zones on Europa, doesn't mean there isn't crustal recycling happening on Europa.

    You think maybe that the strike-slip faults have exactly zero dip-slip components?
    You think maybe the compressive features aren't compressive?
    Perhaps you think that Water can freeze, but ice can't melt?
    Or maybe there's a gap between the icey crust and the watery mantle?
     
  14. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Well right now just Earth, but the scientific community has pretty much agreed liquid water used to exist on mars. Mars also has volcanoes which are now dead and mirrors earth in many ways, this is why it is such an interesting planet to study.

    Yet....no subduction zones! How can a planet which DID have liquid water, and has clearly had volcanism in the past have NO subduction zones?

    Here is how Mars is expanding...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1FIlWfglrg&feature=related

    In this video the upper tectonic layer (the "continents" which are the oldest and most highly elevated parts of the planet) fit together PERFECTLY just like the upper tectonic layers of Earth when re-winded. Just like on Ganymede, just like on Europa.

    On all these planetary bodies there is old material (upper tectonic plates, which the scientific communities have confirmed is much older AND higher altitude) and the new material (which we know is new due to lack of craterization) which is the lower tectonics. By shrinking ONLY the LOWER tectonic areas (the new material, on Earth the seafloor), the UPPER tectonic areas (the "continents") fit together perfectly, on all planetary bodies observed so far. Even on planetary bodies known to have water in the past and volcanism.

    You really think that is just coincidence the upper tectonics always fit together perfectly?
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Ugh.

    I don't mean to be rude, but you do actually understand what Tectonic theory says don't you?

    You do understand that when Alfred Wegner first proposed the continental drift theory, the fact that the coastlines of the continents matched up was cited as evidence supporting continental drift don't you?

    That's the thing - you keep hammering on about this point, but it's a nothing, it's also predicted by continental drift theory.

    it also does nothing to change the fact that Neal Adams has no background in Geology and his video of the earth contains substantial factual inaccuracies.

    As far as Mars goes, Mars is a smaller planet, that cooled quicker, had a thicker crust then the earth, and only had liquid water on the surface for a short period of time.

    And i'm sure you'll be able to prove that there are no compressive features on the surface of mars?
     
  16. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    No. You're wrong again. Even the plate tectonics cultists on Retardipedia say there is no subduction on any extraterrestrial planet in the universe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

    Even the morons who edit Retardipedia understand that basic fact. But Trippy doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2008
  17. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    And thus ladies and gentleman, religious fundamentalism was born. Observation is no longer relevant...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    If the only argument I had for subduction zones is that Neal Adams is a comic book artist I would keep repeating it over and over as well.

    The fact is no geologist would be so stupid as to claim there is subduction on Mars or any other planet in the solar system.
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    We've already discussed this OIM.

    Remember the point, which you ceded, that we can only observe the surfaces of a hand full of planets.

    Are you suggesting that your eyesite is suffiiciently good that you can observe the surfaces of extra solar planets, and that you know for a fact that Tectonics isn't active?

    Earth may be the only planet we currently observe active tectonics on the surface of, but that by no means implies that Earth is the only planet in the universe that currently has, or has ever had active tectonics.

    For you to attempt to imply this is simply dishonest.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    This statement is irrelevant, an outright lie, and a total misrepresnetation of what I actually said.

    Therefore, I will not be addressing it further, simply relying on the integrity of the mods, and the average reader to understand what I actually said, and have said in the past.

    IE that:

    1. Compression features are observed on the surface of Europa.
    2. There are mechanisms other then tectonic subduction responsible for crustal recycling on Europa.
    3. Yes, we do not observe what we recognize as subduction zones on the surface of Europa, but that may simply mean that subduction zones on Europa do not resemble subduction zones on earth.
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Fair enough I'll grant you that but now we are delving into the realm of a priori theory, metaphysics, and religion which presumably, as a scientist, you hate.

    No. Of course the tectonics are active. Earth expansion means active tectonics...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    By way of rift/fault spreading. There is no subduction. It's subduction that's wrong, not active tectonics.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Completely irrelevant to Neal Adam's qualifications, and the factual inaccuracies contained in his video.

    "Has not been observed" is a hugely different statement to "Does not exist".
     
  23. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Plate tectonics did not predict the west coast of California and East coast of Asia matching perfectly as far as I am aware. In plate tectonics if Pangea existed why would opposites sides of a land mass line up perfectly?
    I could not find any information, if you have a link please share it.


    Please explain how the rate of cooling (it would still take a few billion years to cool) would have any effect on the tectonics?

    And despite the lack of water, we still see elevated landmasses, which are consistently older (just like on earth's continents), and lower spreading zones (which are under the oceans on earth).

    Are we really still thinking the Earth is ANY different than the rest of the universe? Are we still living in that bubble of were different and special somehow? In our minds we still are at the center of the universe.

    And as far as the moment of inertia thing goes, we dont have a complete theory of gravity as it stands now. This is a radical new way of looking at things and would REQUIRE completely new equations. Unfortunately everyone (and this board proves it) is entirely too judgmental.
     

Share This Page