I don't have direct access to the text of the article, but I do repeat my question on the quoted text: Does that article state that crust stretching requires recent global expansion or are you assuming that?

If it does discuss recent global expansion, perhaps you could provide a short quote from the article? Thanks.

__________________
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

I asked:Total Science replied:Is that it? You're critical of people who post on the BAUT forum for ignoring peer-reviewed evidence that Ganymede has expanded. With the greatest of respect to my fellow posters, I don't think anyone here operates in the higher echelons of planetary science. What does it matter if BAUT forum posters have ignored evidence that Ganymede has expanded?

No, seriously - what is the point of this thread?

Hi TotalScience. I'm new to this thread, and I haven't read any of those references, but I hope you don't mind me joining in.

Your peeve seems to be that members of BAUT don't believe that Ganymede has expanded (or any other tense). Is this correct, so far?

I don't think they say "is expanding," but rather "has expanded".

BTW, like Peter B I think it seems reasonable to think that Ganymede has expanded. The question is, so what?

And later you ask:

None. Is there one that one should make?

__________________
As above, so below

Whether "expansion" is ATM or not depends on what specifically you are referring to. Are you talking about a period of limited expansion due to differentiation, or something else? If something else, what specifically are you referring to?

__________________
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 reference says that Europa has recently had its crust stretched, it doesn't say anything about the timescale for Ganymede.
What it says about Ganymede is that the mechanism when it happened for Ganymede, without implying when it happened, looks like it could have been similar.

Actually it looks like the one to ignore the reference was yourself.

__________________
‘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.

That's correct.

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

Water, ice, expansion on freezing, cracked pipes? (and no change of mass).

Which BAUT members don't believe Ganymede expanded? have any actualy posted to that effect?
Also the refs seem to say MAY have expanded.

Why is the fact that some BAUT members may not be aware of the theory that Ganymede may have expanded important?

__________________
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 ►

As I have already said although you obviously ignored it, my intention is to criticize ideas only and discuss Ganymede's expansion.

However, you have replied 6 times in this thread and so far you have not provided one peer-reviewed scientific reference or any mainstream scientific content in any one of those posts. Most impressive. However not presuasive.

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

I am asking questions, I am trying to find out what the point of the thread is. Under the rules of ATM you are supposed to be providingsome content.

__________________
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 ►

I refer you to the content in the opening post which you are ignoring.

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

but the content in the opening post doesn't tell us what the point of the thread is? what are you saying? sum it up now in a paragraph. Don't just bung in a bunch of random quotes from some external ref. Tell us in your own words.

__________________
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 ►

So you believe Ganymede has expanded, is expanding, might expand again. As do the authors you cite.

That's fine. I have two questions, if you don't mind:

1. Is there a difference (amongst scientists) between peer-reviewed and mainstream thought?

2. Any chance you could (briefly) explain the mechanism, in layman's terms, involved with Ganymede expansion? Or at least the dominant mechanism?

Thanks

Well, I'm getting tired of waiting for you to explain yourself, and I did not ignore your opening post. So here's my interpretation.I read it, and the references I could access (which was not all of them). The way those seemed to break down were:

(1) Articles/webpages that appear to be mainstream and discuss limited long past expansion that does not require exotic explanation.

(2) Articles/webpages that have not been shown to be relevant to Ganymede's expansion. For instance, having some "stretching crust" does not require an entire surface to expand. These articles are irrelevant unless clear, relevant text can be shown that indicates the "expansion."

(3) Expanding Earth/Ganymede Articles/webpages/videos that are wildly ATM, and almost certainly why this was shunted to ATM. For these wild and wacky arguments to be acceptable, you would need to find some very good support.

My guess is that you're attemting to support (3) using (1) and (2) and aren't happy when people ask you about the problems and limitations of (1) and (2).

__________________
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

Total Science, what rate of expansion of any of those bodies is implied by any of the papers that you refer to?

In the context of your expanding Earth theory, what expansion rate do you believe is involved for this body?

There are many possibilities depending on who you ask. What is the mechanism that causes it's mass to remain static when it is well known that it has been hit by meteorites and accreted mass over time?

In the case of general planetary expansion I would say the following.

"The insinuation that we do not know a physical process responsible for an accelerated Earth expansion is not a scientific counter argument. The physical nature of many processes has regularly been recognized in science, long after they were first recognized as real phenomena." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=36uyr9nx

Check this out: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm



Nope no mass there.

Le, et al, The Magnetic and Plasma Structure of Flux Transfer Events, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 104, Number A1, Pages 233–245, 1999

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

I think the issue is that you don't understand the amount of energy it would take to create the amount of mass it would take to expand the earth in the scope you are speaking of.

__________________
---"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)---

Wait please; you've jumped from expansion to mass accretion. I'm still studying expansion. Excuse my pace- I'm trying to work at the same time.

From your links (the ones I could open), and other sources on this wonderful internet, I get heating as the dominant mechanism for expansion, most likely tidal heating, or radiogenic heating, or a combination of both. This seems acceptable to me.
3. Are you ok with this?

I also find that from the interaction, distribution and physical properties of craters and groves, that Ganymede expansion was a) relatively small and b) a long time in the past. This also seems acceptable to me.
4. Are you ok with this?

Lastly, my Q1 again:
1. Is there a difference (amongst scientists) between peer-reviewed and mainstream thought?

Thanks

Total Science said:If that's the case, why did you start the thread with this question:Why not start the thread with a question like

I'm tired of being told "there are many possible mechanisms; look it up." I want, and this is to be considered a direct question according to board rules, a brief but detailed summary of the few you consider most reasonable and why. Further, I want you to tell me why these ideas are preferable to you over relatively fixed sizes of planets/moons.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I mentioned a mechanism called electromagnetic "flux transfer events" but you ignored it.

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

That's a meaningless string of words to me. Explain it. In your own words.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Sure, every 8 minutes something happens that until now scientists didn't believe in -- an electromagnetic portal will open up between the Earth and the sun and millions of tons of subatomic particles will bombard the core of the Earth. Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation between sunspots and Earthquakes as noted by Freund and Thornhill.

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

And here you display once again a total lack of any comprehension of the scales involved. FTEs don't even cause decent aurorae, they're only detectable with extremely sensitive instruments. The energy they can supply falls short of what you need by many tens of orders of magnitude. (I'm probably being overly generous here)

edit: and they don't bombard the core with millions of tons of particles. It's a plasmadynamic effect involving the Earth's and sun's magnetospheres, and the extremely diffuse plasma comprising the slow solar wind.

Well that's interesting except that you totally ignored the half of my post that talks about the correlation of sunspots and earthquakes noted by Freund and Thornhill.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=36uyr9nx

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

Do you have any evidence for this?

Wait, isn't Thornhill the Electric Universe guy? Oh, Gods.

So is the Sun then shrinking?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I will limit my discussion to Total Science's link to the Science article.

This is not a peer-reviewed paper. It is a news article reporting on the 2000 autumn meeting of the AGU. The news was that the Galileo probe had found evidence of a flipped induced magnetic field, indicating that Ganymede probably has a salty ocean, likely about 170 km below the surface, in contrast to Europa's 10-20 km.

There was discussion that while the liquid may be far below the surface today, it was not necessarily always so. The researchers had expected to see evidence of ice volcanoes in the images, but didn't find any. Instead, they found that the crust had stretched and spread. Quoting Planetary geologist James Head of Brown University in Providence , Kerr wrote:

"This new data indicates tectonic activity seems to dominate the surface of Ganymede as it does on Europa more than the icy volcanism we expected" (my emphasis).

All of the discussion in the article is about the presence of the ocean nearer to the surface in its distant past, and a period of warming in which the liquid ocean expanded toward the surface. Here, a full paragraph regarding comments made by planetary physicist David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena:

"But sometime since, perhaps about a billion years ago, Ganymede seems to have gotten a shot of heat that reignited its core magnetic dynamo and expanded its nascent ocean toward the surface, says Stevenson. This rejuvenation could have happened if Ganymede temporarily stepped into the orbital "dance of the satellites" that fueled the recent resurfacing of Europa, he adds."

Kerr's summary paragraph:

"As Ganymede drifted away from Jupiter, it may have passed through an orbital arrangement with other Galilean satellites that distorted its orbit into an ellipse. The resulting tidal flexing of its rock and ice--enhanced by even a thin ocean--would have temporarily heated its interior, expanded the ocean, and flexed a weakened crust. That flexing and the warmth of the ocean could have renewed and brightened the surface, or, as luck would have it, only half of it. Once beyond the resonance, Ganymede would have cooled again, stuck in its two-faced look. "

Nowhere in that article is there any hint of discussion about growth in size of the satellite in the sense of a continuing process that has increased its mass significantly in the recent past.


Why do you pitch the article you linked as peer-reviewed and why do you think it supports the notion of an expanding Ganymede?


The discussion in that article indicates a few million years for Europa, and "perhaps about billion years ago" for Ganymede.

I didn't see anything about sunspots in that paper. Could you please quote the section to which you referred above?