Let's stay on topic, which concerns the alleged expansion of certain bodies.

Thanks for that! That was an enjoyable read, but like Van Rijn, I'm not exactly sure of its purpose in the OP list of links. I'm guessing that it is supposed to preempt any discussion of Earth-like plate tectonics being the cause of the appearance of Ganymede. Though tectonics is mentioned in that article by Kerr, it is decidedly not about plate tectonics as they occur on Earth.

and
You don't seem to appreciate cjameshuff's calculations.

If there is one these events happening every 8 minutes, that's 365.25*24*60/8 = 65745 such events per year.

If there are 1,000,000 tonnes of stuff coming in and sticking to the Earth, that's 65745*1,000,000 = 65,745,000,000 tonnes per year.

If this has been happening for 4,600,000,000 years, then 3.0242x10²⁰ tonnes have been added this way.

The present mass of the Earth provided by Google Calculator is 5.9742 x 10²⁴ kg, or 5.9742 x 10²¹ tonnes.

So, 3.0242x10²⁰ / 5.9742 x 10²¹ = 0.0506 or about 5.1% of the current mass of the Earth. Under such a scenario the original mass of the Earth would have been 0.949 that of today. If the density of the new stuff is the same as what was there to begin with (for lack of a better estimate), then the Earth's diameter would have been 0.949^1/3 = 0.983 its present diameter.

Oh, and for you to think that is true, you have to ignore a lot of peer reviewed science.

You have proposed no alternative mechanism for planetary formation to the mainstream concept of growth and expansion that I propose.

"Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, November 2005

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

You might want to look up "protoplanetary disk," something that no longer exists in this solar system. If you really are interested in planetary formation (and aren't just trying to shift focus away from your ATM idea), you might ask in Q&A. But if you do ask in Q&A, only ask if you are honestly interested in hearing the answers. Don't go there to promote your ATM idea.

__________________
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 don't need to propose any alternative to your ideas, whatever they may be. There is a large body of mainstream theory which is an ample alternative.

So now you're proposing that because there are peer-reviewed articles saying that Ganymede has expanded, that makes your growth and expansion theory for planetary formation the "mainstream"?

So does that mean this thread is actually proposing a mechanism for the formation of the planets in our Solar System?

Actually, the website you quoted says "During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page." Somehow you have managed to take "tons" from the original, and turn it into "millions of tons". You also seem to have added the additional claim (emphasis mine) that ... "subatomic particles will bombard the core of the Earth."

There is a big difference between tons of charged particles bombarding the top of the atmosphere, which is what the NASA webpage is talking about, and "millions" of tons of charged particles bombarding the "core" of the Earth, which is what you are talking about. An unbiased observer could naturally conclude that you are misrepresenting the NASA webpage. Your response?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

So in your proto-planetary disk model, planets just magically and miraculously pop into existence at their current diameters?

Correct. So far you have failed to propose an alternative. Still waiting for a single peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming Ganymede has maintained a fixed-radius.

Neutrinos are real.

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

Serious misrepresentation of an idea you apparently don't understand there.

Still waiting for you to realize that no one here is claiming that Ganymede has maintained a fixed radius.

So is ice-cream. Why are neutrinos more relevant?

__________________
‘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.

Then perhaps you should've clarified?

OK so I guess we're all happy then. If that's true, this thread should be moved to a mainstream forum.

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

Hm...this thread has taken a bizarre turn. We're now discussing planetary formation, mass accretion and various aspects of EM phenomenon. Ok, guess that's my cue to leave.

Total Science, if you can get round to answering these, great, otherwise see you around in a non-ATM section. Thanks.

Specific reference? Quote? Source? Link?

Specific reference? Quote? Source? Link?

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

Ah... I've noticed this about your posting. The answer-a-question-with-a-question thread is over here.

A simple 'no', followed by your alternative would have sufficed.

Having said that, I quite like the above game; so let me chime in:

Debating skills? Comprehension skills? Social skills?

You're up...

I didn't think you would be able to support your claims with scientific references and so far I am correct.

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

Hello? Hello? For someone who complains about being ignored, you sure seem to be ignoring the advice in the text you quoted.


Okay, that's just sad. There is absolutely no reference to neutrinos on that webpage, and they're a completely different subject. You have repeatedly evaded admitting to your embellishments, and now you're throwing in neutrinos as well.

__________________
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 is very different to your earlier post where you said
Now you are claiming a couple of tons every 8 minutes.

Neutrinos are very real, but what have they to do with this? Do they require a "magnetic portal" to reach the Earth? If not, then why mention them in the context of this type of event?

As for them reaching the core of the Earth, many do, but by far the vast majority of them then fly straight out the other side.

I asked:Total Science replied:Total Science, your second statement (peer-reviewed paper claiming Ganymede has maintained a fixed radius) doesn’t follow from your first statement. Just because no one has produced a paper claiming Ganymede’s radius hasn’t changed does not mean your theory that the planets came into existence by the growth and expansion theory you seem to be proposing.

There is a lot of material out there proposing how the planets came to exist. The most popular one is called the Nebular Hypothesis. The Wikipedia article on it appears to be fairly comprehensive.

Now I realise that Wikipedia is hardly a peer-reviewed journal, but I’d note the entry references many relevant articles. Perhaps you could read a few of those to get an idea of what the mainstream is regarding the formation of the planets.

Total Science also said:Just how did you get that out of that statement of Van Rijn’s you quoted? He gave you a path of research you could undertake, and you responded by completely misrepresenting the theory. The nebular hypothesis makes no such claim.

it may behoove you NOT to use straw-man so obviously in here. Also it may help if you take the advice of others and look up the alternative theories - particularly nebular theory as advised.

Also do not swap burden of proof. Again - NO ONE HERE is claiming Ganymede has had a fixed radius for its entire life as a moon. What we *are* collectively claiming is that your proposed rates and method of expansion are wildly inaccurate and flatly wrong.

__________________
---"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)---

It is a direct quote from your post #86:
The earlier post you referred to (#84) said:
It is a serious matter to claim that a respected scientist supports your ATM idea if he does not. Provide a citation from Dr Freund to substantiate those claims or withdraw them. Further evasion will be reported.

Specific quotations were provided by Torsten, from Kerr, R.A., Jupiter's Two-Faced Moon, Ganymede, Falling Into Line, which you cited in the OP.
Do you agree with this article that you cited or not?

Freund claims there is a correlation between bulging Earth surfaces, low frequency electromagnetic emission, earthquake lights (aka auroras from the solar wind), magnetic field anomalies, temperature anomalies, changes in plasma density in the ionosphere, strange animal behavior, electromagnetic currents in crustal rocks, and earthquakes. Acknowledge this or else further evasion will be reported.

Furthermore, Bleier and Freund write and I quote:

It is Thornhill and many others besides who make the direct connection between Freund and sunspots specifically and I have already acknowledged this. Your attempt to ignore the expansion of Ganymede and focus on a red herring is pathetic.

I disagree with it's speculative aspects. What mechanism caused the growth to stop?

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

Anyone can go look at previous posts in the thread. Do you realize how dishonest and ridiculous your chosen tactics make you look to anyone doing so? You ignore questions and counterpoints and make accusations that are clearly shown to be false by prior posts in the same thread. That is pathetic.


The differentiation of the moon's interior and the achievement of an equilibrium in the phases of various materials, particularly between liquid water and various forms of water ice. These processes result in moderate changes in volume until they arrive at a stable state.

No. Not according to Kerr.

"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

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

Neutrinos are indeed real. However, they are not charged particles (you did specifically say "charged" particles, you know). They also do not simply "bombard" the core of the Earth, they pass right through it, and so could not add either to the mass or girth of Earth. And, finally, a total neutrino flux through the Earth of about 10²⁸/sec would add about 10^-5 grams/second to the mass of Earth, assuming that all of the neutrinos were stopped by the core and none at all passed through it. That's a far cry short of "millions of tons" every 8 minutes.

So you have not answered the original question I asked. How is it that your claim does not seriously misrepresent the NASA webpage which you originally quoted?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

P-holes are a mechanism for charged particles to enter the mantle and core.

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

What's a "P-hole"?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

That is not in disagreement with what I wrote. I gave a cause for volume changes. Stretching of the crust is an effect of those changes.

I should also mention (though it's already been said in this thread) that volume changes are not the only cause...tidal deformation and relaxation from a more oblate form as rotation slows (far more significant in the case of tidally locked or nearly-locked moons of a gas giant) will also cause stretching of the crust, and do so in specific patterns.


The only use of the term I know of is for electron vacancies in P-type semiconductors. It's pure delusion to think they have anything to do with allowing mass to be added to Earth's core, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with neutrinos.

I suspect Total Science is referring to Friedemann Freund's use of the term.

Again: Substantiate your statement. (And note, it is still more stuff not on the page being discussed.)

__________________
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