Yes, but you ignored it. It's posted above.

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

In which post?

Shock and awe. However expansion tectonics is the exact opposite of plate tectonics.

Plate tectonics does not exist on Ganymede.

Martin, P., et al., Why Does Plate Tectonics Occur Only On Earth?, Physics Education, 43, Pages 144-150, 2008

Samuel Warren Carey came up with the answer to that question.

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1976

You ignore all the peer reviewed science which is why you deliberately chose to limit your discussion to the only article that wasn't peer reviewed but which nevertheless was published in Science Magazine.

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

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

The Expansion of Ganymede

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

That does not support your claim about "the correlation of sunspots and earthquakes noted by Freund". That is a crackpot website making claims about sunspots, not Dr Freund. Please supply evidence or withdraw the claim.

That does not support your claim...
Please provide evidence or withdraw the claim.

Thornhill notes the correlation. Dr. Freund's remarks you are simply ignoring.

"Many strange phenomena precede large earthquakes. Some of them have been reported for centuries, even millennia. The list is long and diverse: bulging of the Earth's surface, changing well water levels, ground-hugging fog, low frequency electromagnetic emission, earthquake lights from ridges and mountain tops, magnetic field anomalies up to 0.5% of the Earth's dipole field, temperature anomalies by several degrees over wide areas as seen in satellite images, changes in the plasma density of the ionosphere, and strange animal behavior. Because it seems nearly impossible to imagine that such diverse phenomena could have a common physical cause, there is great confusion and even greater controversy." (Freund 2003)

"Based on the reported laboratory results of electrical measurements, no mechanism seemed to exist that could account for the generation of those large currents in the Earth's crust, which are needed to explain the strong EM signals and magnetic anomalies that have been documented before some earthquakes. Unfortunately, when a set of observations cannot be explained within the framework of existing knowledge, the tendency is not to believe the observation. Therefore, a general malaise has taken root in the geophysical community when it comes to the many reported non-seismic and non-geodesic pre-earthquake phenomena. There seems to be no bona fide physical process by which electric currents of sufficient magnitude could be generated in crustal rocks." (Freund 2003)

I provided the evidence however you have repeatedly ignored it: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

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

Those remarks do not support your claim of "the correlation of sunspots and earthquakes noted by Freund". Please substantiate that claim or withdraw it.

That does not support your claim...
Please substantiate that claim or withdraw it.

Total Science, I asked earlier what you believed the expansion rate was for Ganymede, and what you think the expansion rate for the Earth was. Do you have any estimates?

You’ve got a serious obsession working here Total Science.

Post #3:
“did you look at the peer-reviewed science posted above or did you ignore it?”

Post #60:
“I refer you to the references you ignored posted above.”

Post #70:
“As I have already said although you obviously ignored it,”

Post #72:
“I refer you to the content in the opening post which you are ignoring.”

Post #82:
“I mentioned a mechanism called electromagnetic "flux transfer events" but you ignored it.”

Post #86:
“Well that's interesting except that you totally ignored”

Post #91:
“Yes, but you ignored it. It's posted above.”

Post #93:
“You ignore all the peer reviewed science”

Post #96:
“Dr. Freund's remarks you are simply ignoring.”

“I provided the evidence however you have repeatedly ignored it”

Take the needle off the record. Nobody has ignored anything; they simply disagree with you.

There are also questions from PraedSt that have not been answered.

I'm 100 km from the nearest library that might allow me access to Martin et al's paper. So I have no opinion on it.

But, you seem to think that the early assumption about icy volcanism mentioned by Kerr is a problem, having bolded it in your OP. You seem to agree that better imaging and data forced a reassessment of that idea, but then you ignore the reasoned explanation offered in the last two paragraphs of that article and instead refer to it as an example of "expansion tectonics".

You presume to read my mind? Reading through the thread, I noticed that at least on of the posters does not have access to Science. I'm working at home today, and I happen to subscribe to this journal, so that's where I went first. I notice that the article is not a peer-reviewed paper as you implied in several posts, and nothing in it supports your assertion, so I put together a post to summarize what Kerr actually reported without plagiarizing the whole thing. That took awhile. My purpose was to show how at least one of your links does not support your idea in any way. I may read the others eventually, but I have other chores to complete today. Understand?

Now, please tell us exactly how you think that article supports your idea, or withdraw the claim.

The implied expansion rate for the Earth derived from the difference between the estimate of the size in antiquity and the current value ("at least 76.75 miles growth in 2223 years") was, if I have it right, around 180 feet a year. Forgive me if I find that implausible.

Tons, millions of tons, what's the difference...just a handful of zeros.

But, assuming 1e6 tons of matter transferred per FTE, at 1 FTE roughly every 8 minutes, it all adds up to an increase in mass of about 5% of Earth's current mass over 5 billion years, and assuming no change in density, an increase in diameter of 1.6%. This is ignoring the fact that these particles don't bother to stick around (the ones that eventually reach Earth impact the atmosphere, form neutral hydrogen and helium, and mostly escape back into space. The bulk probably goes straight into the tail of Earth's magnetosphere and never reaches the planet) and the fact that there's nowhere near "millions of tons" involved in each event in the first place.

Add another non-Science-subscriber, and thanks for exposing that disingenuouity. How can any of us that do not have access to such articles now trust that the quotes from them are not taken out of context, or presented to support something more than the authors would support?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Heh, yes, I was going to say something similar. It's very obvious that this thread, and references (when we have access to them) are certainly not being ignored. Thanks to Torsten for bringing to light the background of one of the 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

Not only implausible, but easily measured by GPS (which can be used to measure, for example, the deformation of volcanos as the magma moves within them).

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Torsten wrote:

“I'm 100 km from the nearest library that might allow me access to Martin et al's paper. So I have no opinion on it.”

Rummaged around a bit, came up with this. I get the distinct impression that Total Science read no more than the abstract.

http://leitzelcenter.unh.edu/geo-tea...eTectonics.pdf

That is not a direct quote. That is taken out of context.

It's been substantiated. Millions of tons, every 8 minutes for at least 4.5 billion years. Have someone else do the math for you if you can't.

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

Yes estimates have been provided in the links posted above.

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

Ah, thanks. A couple of quick highlights: The article is about the terrestrial worlds (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, and Mars). Ganymede is not included. Also, I see no references to "expansion."

Total Science, what was your reason for referencing this article?

__________________
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

Read the title of the article and you will know the reason I posted it.

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

Where, specifically, has it been substantiated? It certainly wasn't in that NASA press release you've pointed 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

Well, I can guess. Was it because you had no clue what the article was about and you liked the title?

__________________
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

Regarding your rape of the flux tube link, you might want to double-check the actual wording. Where does it say ‘millions of tons’?

Ok the article says tons plural. Let's assume it's 2 tons every 8 minutes. Currently 1 day contains 1440 minutes. So that's at minumum 360 tons a day. Multiply 360 by 365 you get 131,400 tons per year. Multiply 131,400 by 4.6 billion and that's how many tons I'm talking about. At minimum that we know about and we don't know anything.

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

What is 2 tons every 8 minutes? Please be specific, and substantiate your statement.

__________________
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 part of 2 tons (at minimum) every 8 minutes don't you understand?

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

It comes out to about 0.00000009 times the current mass of Earth. And as I mentioned before, assuming all of it hits Earth and sticks to it, which is not the case. Your babble about it going into Earth's core is pure nonsense.

These events are basically irrelevant in looking at the net mass gain/loss of Earth. Meteors and dust are far more important...but that's accretion, not expansion, and it's still tiny.

So how do planets form?

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

Two tons of what every 8 minutes? Two tons do what every 8 minutes?

You took a NASA press release and somehow got "millions of tons of subatomic particles will bombard the core of the Earth." But there isn't anything in that press release about "millions of tons" and certainly nothing about subatomic particles bombarding the Earth's core.

__________________
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