Since you didn't provide any scientific support for your claims, they don't carry much weight with me.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

You are the one making claims.

Where is the link between Gannymede, Earth and your mechanism for expansion?

In fact, What is your mechanism?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Since this thread has been moved to ATM, then what is the ATM proposal? That Ganymede has expanded?

It's hard to do ATM without a good initial proposition, preferably narrow in its scope. Help us, OP. I have no problems with an expanding Ganymede, just not on the scale that you seem to be thinking of.

Why do people ignore courtesy and reason by mixing crackpot references in among actual references?

Why do people compare grapes and watermelons, then pretend one has anything to do with the other?

Why do people desperately grasp at straws, then construct straw men to battle, as if anyone here even distantly resembled such two-dimensional caricatures?

I can’t even ask for my money back. From the expanding earth link:

“ultra-mundane (e.g., sub-quantum) material can pass through the external layers and collect at the cores of planets and moons, causing them to expand from the inside out. This last method, which is consistent with ether-sink views of gravity may be one aspect of planetary formation not adequately considered.”

Attempting to support one outrageous fantasy by invoking another outrageous fantasy is not how science works.

Heathen - you get the golden star for today. well said.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

And tidal forces, and others?

First off: I am not going to a site that I have to pay for.
Second: I am asking for your interpretation of the material you are presenting in your own words.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

This is important, we want to know what your ideas and thoughts are on the subject.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

What would you like to know exactly?

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the opening question.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

Total Science wrote:

“I'm still waiting for someone to answer the opening question.”

OK.

“Question: Why do people ignore peer-reviewed science?”

??? They don’t. They simply arrive at different conclusions than you as to the possible significance of the material. It has already been pointed out to you that there is no connection between a postulated early expansion of Ganymede by a couple of percent at best and your attempt to promote an expanding Earth. Most E.E. ideas I’ve encountered conject an expansion of 30% to 40%. Worse yet, they rely upon unproven and rather fanciful mechanisms.

Should you place on the table a specific mechanism (which does not invoke hand waving), you’re likely to receive more specific criticism.

note that a vague 'turning energy into mass' statement isn't a mechanism.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Your interpretation of the material in relation to the questions asked in posts 2,9,13,18,26,32,33,36

It's very difficult to answer a question that is based on information that is not on common ground.
Not only that, the question is vague and misleading. You don't specify what people. You don't specify what science. So; any one person paying attention to any science invalidates the question.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

What conclusion do you reach based upon the expansion of Ganymede?

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

what conclusions do you reach? you are the one with the ATM claim.

Also can you answer in your own words and not by cut and paste.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Also could you please post the Ganymede numbers? i.e. how much do you think it has expanded?

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Total Science wrote:

“What conclusion do you reach based upon the expansion of Ganymede?”

Loaded question. The …proposed…expansion of Ganymede is just that, a proposal. None of the papers you linked to declared expansion as fact. The various authors…suggested…that expansion…may…have occurred. It has not yet been established that it is the best or only interpretation of the observations. Further, the authors made it clear that their proposed mechanism is, as yet, unconfirmed.

Short answer; inconclusive.

P.S. Answering questions with questions is recognized around here as evasion.

Total Science: Could I advise that you tone down your "voice" a little bit. A little humility can go a long ways. As one who entertains a few ATM theories more than your average BAUT-er, your attitude is a turn-off to say the least.


There IS evidence of an expanding/expanded Earth, but the theory will not stand ground until a mechanism can be tested and proven.

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

My interpretation and understanding of the peer-reviewed material published in mainstream scientific journals like Nature and Science Magazine is that it is correct: Ganymede is in fact expanding. Beyond any reasonable doubt of which I am aware. Still waiting to see a single peer-reviewed scientific paper from a mainstream scientific publication claiming otherwise.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

If you think the articles published in Nature and Science magazines are "against the mainstream" views you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If Nature and Science Magazine have published the "against the mainstream" view regarding Ganymede's expansion, who, may I ask, has published the alleged "mainstream" view that Ganymede has maintained a fixed radius?

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

Shouldn't that be has expanded? For reasons already mentioned? Hydrogen bonds and all that?

And that global ocean "nobody has seen" is deduced by the core and the crust spinning at different speeds. What would you conclude, ball bearings?

(Jeez, you're a hostile little git.)

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Fine. Has expanded relatively recently, if you prefer. And perhaps is now expanding and will expand again in the future.

Hydrogen bonds cause moons and planets to expand? Well there is the alleged "mystery" mechanism then.

I'm hostile? I come in peace for all mankind...

All of the hostility I have observed so far has been directed towards me because I accept the mainstream concensus view of Ganymede's expansion published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature and Science Magazine.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

I have to say, Total Science, that I still don't get your original question, and I don't think you answered the first of my two questions:

Who is ignoring peer-reviewed science?

I get the impression the peer-reviewed science they (whoever they are) are ignoring is the theory that Ganymede has expanded. Is that correct?

No, because you push a totally off-the-wall, way out of mainstream interpretation of those observations and apply them to pushing your own "theory", attempting to claim it is backed by mainstream science while implying that everyone who disagrees is ignorant or dishonest. All that considered, the response you've gotten seems quite mild.

Please define "relatively recently" and provide references that show this.

Again, references?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This paper refers to expansion due to differentiation. I don't see anything indicating that this is particularly recent.

Did whatever article you got this quote from say that crust stretching on Ganymede required recent global expansion? Or are you assuming that?


So much for mainstream science. This guy is pushing expanding earth stuff.

Expanding Earth Neal Adams? And you wonder why this was moved to ATM?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

What interpretation would that be?

Those who claim Ganymede's expansion is "against the mainstream." Several people in this thread. I won't mention names because it reflects the prevailing attitude and I wish to criticize ideas only.

That is correct.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

"Researchers now believe that Ganymede's more youthful-looking half could be due to a crust that stretched--as has happened in the past few million years on Europa--rather than any sort of icy volcanism, as many had assumed." -- Richard. A. Kerr, 2001

Kerr, R.A., Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line, Science, Volume 291, Number 5501, Pages 22-23, 2001

I refer you to the references you ignored posted above.

__________________
"The most likely site for error is in the most fundamental of our beliefs." -- Samuel Warren Carey, geologist, 1988