Faraway moon mimics Earth tectonics

September 7, 2014
False-color image of Europa’s trailing northern hemisphere, where subduction zones are hypothesized to exist. Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Jupiter's icy moon Europa may have active tectonic plates similar to those that shape the Earth, which had long been thought unique in this respect, scientists said Sunday.

They used images captured by NASA's Galileo spacecraft, which orbited Jupiter and its moons from 1995 to 2003, to study the criss-cross of ridges and fractures on Europa's shell.

The moon, slightly smaller than the one orbitting Earth, has one of the youngest surfaces in the Solar System, implying "rapid recycling", said the team.

They found evidence that a piece of the surface had disappeared along a boundary between two ice plates, possibly when one sunk under the other.

They took this as evidence of surface material being recycled into the moon's interior—similar to parts of Earth's crust which sink into the underlying mantle at so-called subduction zones where tectonic plates converge.

The team had studied an area of 134,000 square kilometres (51,700 square miles), using the images and a reconstruction of .

They found that a 20,000 km2-portion of surface was missing.

"We propose that Europa's has a brittle, mobile, plate-like system above convecting warmer ice," they wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"Hence, Europa may be the only Solar System body other than Earth to exhibit a system of plate tectonics."

Europa is one of the four largest moons of Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest in our Solar System.

Close-up view of a proposed zone of mid-ocean-ridge-like plate spreading on Europa (unrelated to the region studied in this work). This dilational band called Phaidra Linea, located in Europa’s trailing hemisphere near Argadnel Regio, shows internal striations related to spreading and bilateral symmetry about a central axis. Older geological features can be matched perfectly to either side of the spreading zone. Black strip in the center of the image is a narrow region where there is no image coverage. Credit: NASA/JPL

Scientists have found evidence of plate tectonics on Jupiter's moon Europa. This conceptual illustration of the subduction process (where one plate is forced under another) shows how a cold, brittle, outer portion of Europa's 20-30 kilometer-thick (roughly 10-20 mile) ice shell moved into the warmer shell interior and was ultimately subsumed. A low-relief subsumption band was created at the surface in the overriding plate, alongside which cryolavas may have erupted. Credit: Noah Kroese, I.NK

Explore further: A new image of Europa emerges

More information: Nature Geoscience, dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2245

Related Stories

Rover under-ice prototype may lead to Europa search

June 25, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have been working on a device that may one day explore the underside of ice on Europa, Jupiter's moon. NASA completed an early prototype of the rover it hopes ...

Radio signals from Jupiter could aid search for life

June 12, 2014

Powerful radio signals that Jupiter generates could be used to help researchers scan its giant moons for oceans that could be home to extraterrestrial life, according to a recent study submitted to the journal Icarus.

Recommended for you

Bethlehem star may not be a star after all

December 2, 2016

It is the nature of astronomers and astrophysicists to look up at the stars with wonder, searching for answers to the still-unsolved mysteries of the universe. The Star of Bethlehem, and its origin, has been one of those ...

Swiss firm acquires Mars One private project

December 2, 2016

A British-Dutch project aiming to send an unmanned mission to Mars by 2018 announced Friday that the shareholders of a Swiss financial services company have agreed a takeover bid.

Tangled threads weave through cosmic oddity

December 1, 2016

New observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have revealed the intricate structure of the galaxy NGC 4696 in greater detail than ever before. The elliptical galaxy is a beautiful cosmic oddity with a bright core ...

Could there be life in Pluto's ocean?

December 1, 2016

Pluto is thought to possess a subsurface ocean, which is not so much a sign of water as it is a tremendous clue that other dwarf planets in deep space also may contain similarly exotic oceans, naturally leading to the question ...

Embryonic cluster galaxy immersed in giant cloud of cold gas

December 1, 2016

Astronomers studying a cluster of still-forming protogalaxies seen as they were more than 10 billion years ago have found that a giant galaxy in the center of the cluster is forming from a surprisingly-dense soup of molecular ...

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Awesome! Planetary Society's Emily Lakdawalla wrote about the conference this spring where this was a proceeding. I hoped it was good enough to be published!

Not quite the same as terrestrial plate tectonics, but at least showing that it isn't infrequent.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2014
These are grooves. Not plates.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
These are grooves. Not plates.


Citations? Links? Expertise?
Solon
1 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
"Citations? Links? Expertise?"

Plate tectonics, and continental drift, on Earth, are still only theories.

http://en.wikiped...ectonics
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
To my knowledge, there are no journals at the current moment that currently publish on the topic of planetary electrical discharge machining. In the event that a mission is sent out to explore these hypothetical subsurface lakes, this will turn out to be a very costly & embarrassing oversight. The mission will almost certainly fail to produce evidence for this subsurface lake, because the logic for the lake simply ignores the possibility of EDM. EDM is the stronger argument; it's simply not supported by the most popular cosmology, which is why nobody publishes on it.

Do your own research if you like. You might try searching on "europa rilles electric discharge machining". Advocates for plates WILL lose this debate. The question is how much money & time will have to be burnt before the mistake is realized. There are more than enough clues out there at this point for people to pick up on all of this. As much as I love NASA, they are in a bubble on this.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2014
Ah, more EU tripe
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
I'd actually go a step further and suggest that you guys are part of the problem here. When this money is wasted, your own individual decisions to post an uninformed comment rather than taking the time to formulate a meaningful opinion will have played an important part in NASA's decision to waste this money. The world is no longer informationally disconnected. There is no longer an excuse for not educating yourself on these critiques, now that all you have to do is click and read.

Take a look in the mirror. You want to imagine that the professionals are more rigorous than yourself. Take another guess. Tim Thompson has already admitted that astrophysicists do not even read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. Why, then, do you insist upon imagining that they are able to judge this debate? Why would the peer reviewers have any ability to judge EDM without reading IEEE?

Go ahead and try to dive into the ocean. Waste the money. We will be here when you figure it out.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014
Alfven, you are talking rubbish, as usual.
EU is pseudoscience, and has been proven as such. Real scientists understand plasma, electricity, actually everything far better than you do.
NASA scientists have no need to investigate every crank pseudoscience theory.

Go away and dive into the ocean. We will be here when you figure it out.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2014
Alfven, you are talking rubbish, as usual.
EU is pseudoscience, and has been proven as such. Real scientists understand plasma, electricity, actually everything far better than you do.
NASA scientists have no need to investigate every crank pseudoscience theory.

Go away and dive into the ocean. We will be here when you figure it out.


http://www.ieeeex...=REFINE#

Alfven is so delusional he connects "planetary electric discharge mining" to IEEE yet there isn't a single paper about it in their digital library.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Alfven, you are talking rubbish, as usual.
EU is pseudoscience, and has been proven as such. Real scientists understand plasma, electricity
Go away and dive into the ocean. We will be here when you figure it out.


http://www.ieeeex...=REFINE#

Alfven is so delusional he connects "planetary electric discharge mining" to IEEE yet there isn't a single paper about it in their digital library.

Is it stupidity or malice that would lead you to lie, I suspect both maybe involved.

http://www.ieeeex...ischarge

And many more on EDM here;
http://www.ieeeex...achining
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014
@cantthink

Your link on EDM doesn't have a single paper on "planetary electric discharge mining" nor on planetary electric discharge machining. Fail.

Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014
@cantthink

Your first link led to a few EU related articles. None had references, none had been cited and none had been peer reviewed. Nothing but speculative garbage.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014
"Citations? Links? Expertise?"

Plate tectonics, and continental drift, on Earth, are still only theories.

http://en.wikiped...ectonics
@Solon
if you will go back to your wiki link and select the term Scientific Theory (which is in blue and is a HTTP link to the definition of scientific theory) you will find the first few sentences to read thusly:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force
So your post only enhances that you are very unaware of the scientific method as well as the definition and use of "theory" in science

and now you know
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2014
Well the former is in the lead. The first two papers in the link;

'Electric discharges to dust covered surface show similarity to features on planetary bodies'

'Electric arcs provide clue to crater-chain formation'

scrolling on down...

'Static Discharges to a Dust Covered CRT Provides a Clue to Crater Formation on Planetary Bodies'

Your link on EDM doesn't


Wasn't intended to, the "EDM" link is evidence to show just how much is known of EDM outside of the astrophysical community. If you intend to learn something, start with what we know and extrapolate from there. The processes are only different in scale, it's the same physics that drive the phenomena.

Nothing but speculative garbage.

With more direct laboratory empirical evidence than any astrophysicist had ever hoped to conjure up.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
your own individual decisions to post an uninformed comment rather than taking the time to formulate a meaningful opinion will have played an important part in NASA's decision to waste this money
@alfvie
problem is, there is empirical evidence as well as studies supporting the mainstream science you ignore because of your FAITH in eu. like: http://dx.doi.org...ngeo2245
But not even the eu acolytes can produce evidence for their conjecture like you post above, because there is no evidence other than references to delusional belief like CD posted from a site with an almost negative astrophysics impact because of the pseudoscience being posted there regarding astrophysics

IF there is any validity to your claim, you will be able to produce peer reviewed studies from REPUTABLE sources in astrophysics (which IEEE is NOT)

but you can't. so this isn't "UNINFORMED OPINION" it is IGNORING faith based conjectures with a fallacious premiss which defies physics and reality called EU
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
With more direct laboratory empirical evidence than any astrophysicist had ever hoped to conjure
@cd
your "laboratory evidence" should also contain some means and methods for prediction and extrapolation of data so that there is a way to look for evidence in reality

problem is, when you scale the data up you cannot find the evidence in reality
(which is fallacious premiss one of EU)

It should also be able to make accurate predictions
(fallacious premiss 2 of EU- it has made far too many inaccurate predictions & the ones that people like you think ARE accurate are usually based upon delusion or illusion)

it should be able to stand scrutiny
(reason EU is not more widely accepted by literate educated scientists)

It should abide by the known laws of physics
(the death blow for EU)

Your electric stars and planets are simply not feasible as described by EU

lastly, there are NO OBSERVED discharges capable of doing what you described (ex: electric stars)

EU IS PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
Your first link led to a few EU related articles. None had references, none had been cited and none had been peer reviewed. Nothing but speculative garbage.
@Vietvet
he will not listen
but you already likely know that, right?

this is the biggest problem he has with posting
anything that can make the huge changes that he describes in EU, especially on a planetary scale, will have observable scientific evidence...

that evidence is NOT SEEN, which is why EU is considered a PSEUDOSCIENCE
it is also why NASA goes with plate tectonics as well
because it is a plausible theory, it has empirical evidence, the evidence they are collecting CLOSELY MATCHES THE PREDICTIONS of the plate tectonics theory
and best of all, there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE LINKING THE EU CLAIMS and therefore NASA goes with the most accurate, best candidate with the best evidence

PLATE TECTONICS

THANKS for posting Vietvet... traveling

Keep asking for empirical evidence
and pushing reality
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
your "laboratory evidence" should also contain some means and methods for prediction and extrapolation of data so that there is a way to look for evidence in reality


Without EDM, society as we know it does not exist. I'm pretty sure we have the means, methods, and predictions part well enough for extrapolation.

problem is, when you scale the data up you cannot find the evidence in reality


Only because you disregard reality. Io and Enceladeus are examples where the processes are occurring in front of our eyes but other fanciful methods are conjured.

it should be able to stand scrutiny

By people who have no knowledge of electric discharge? Although plasma physics are taught, there isn't an astrophysics program that teaches electric discharge theory.

It should abide by the known laws of physics

EDM theory is well understood, recall the modern society.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
I think plate tectonics is incorrect and the empirical evidence proves expansion tectonics.
http://www.jamesm...AGE_id=5
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014
I think plate tectonics is incorrect and the empirical evidence proves expansion tectonics.
http://www.jamesm...AGE_id=5


I'm not surprised you believe the "expanding world". It's even more ridiculous than EU but we know you don't let science get in the way of your delusional thinking.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
Well, it's simple English, sire...
Electrical discharge is a RESULT of matter and magnetic interaction, not the CAUSE...
sheesh... what's so hard to get about that?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
I think plate tectonics is incorrect and the empirical evidence proves expansion tectonics.
http://www.jamesm...AGE_id=5

Careful, yep.... your ego, not reason, is showing...
Solon
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

"So your post only enhances that you are very unaware of the scientific method as well as the definition and use of "theory" in science

and now you know"

If you want expert opinion, have a look at "Exploring Space, Exploring Earth: New Understanding of the Earth from Space Research" by Paul D. Lowman, ex head NASA Geologist.

"I think this is a mistake. We now know, from space exploration,
that bodies essentially similar to the Earth in composition and struc-
ture have developed differentiated crusts, mountain belts, rift valleys,
and volcanos without plate tectonics, in fact without plates.
Furthermore, we now know, thanks partly to remote sensing from
space, that the Earth's crust can not realistically be considered a
mosaic of 12 discrete rigid plates."
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
If you want expert opinion, have a look at "Exploring Space, Exploring Earth: New Understanding of the Earth from Space Research" by Paul D. Lowman, ex head NASA Geologist
@Solon
before we go any further, do you understand the "SCIENTIFIC" definition of the word: THEORY ?

your use of the phrase
are still only theories
suggest that until you and I agree on the definition, then it will be stupid for either of us to continue until this is resolved.

Secondly: linking to a "free book" that only requires the submission of a credit card number is not a good idea: I am not giving my info to anyone who just wants to "verify I am in a certain country" no matter how many guarantee's they give to me about not making a charge

lastly: if there is empirical evidence supporting your conclusions, there will be studies available from reputable peer reviewed publications with an impact in Geology/plate tectonics

Thanks
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
@Solon
also, regarding the comment
"I think this is a mistake. We now know, from space exploration,
that bodies essentially similar to the Earth in composition and struc-
ture have developed differentiated crusts, mountain belts, rift valleys,
and volcanos without plate tectonics, in fact without plates.
Furthermore, we now know, thanks partly to remote sensing from
space, that the Earth's crust can not realistically be considered a
mosaic of 12 discrete rigid plates."
there is nothing there to suggest that the Earth Plate Tectonics theory is inaccurate, only the number of plates ("MAY" be)

so if there is anything actually present in the book that directly refutes plate tectonics, especially as a theory, it should also reference a study as well as information/empirical data that validates this. you should be able to find it by the reference number and references/Index in the rear of the book. that would be a better place to start than that other link

Thanks
yep
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
http://espace.lib..._id=9645
It is hard to deny the data from the core and magnetic sampling that is the basis for his thesis.

Take a look at the Science foundations map.
http://www.davidr...nd-Conti
This magnetic one is pretty cool.
http://www.geolog...lies.jpg

A priori based in assumption is delusional thinking. I once believed as you do but I questioned my faith as more information became available.

Ego not reasoning? You might need to look at yourself as you try to convince us that lightning is caused by magnetic field lines.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Electrical discharge is a RESULT of matter and magnetic interaction, not the CAUSE...
-WG

I'm was just gonna say 'moving' magnetic fields or 'moving' electrons. Moving matter? It's a bit like the 'what came first, the chicken or the egg' dilemma. It's an event.

3:54pm - looks longingly at Jim Beam. Spring is here. Its warm. Must be time to add ice.

Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2014
@yep
Your comment is puzzling on several levels.

How does the data from core and magnetic sampling in any way support an expanding world when the only driver can be magic?

Science is not based on faith but on the best available evidence, something an expanding world lacks.

Who in the hell said anything about lightning being caused by magnetic field lines?

At least your post led me to a video that blows your "faith" out of the water.

https://www.youtu...g6Od49e8
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2014
Puzzling because you did not read the thesis.
Science proves the earth is expanding. What do you think accretion is?
http://adsabs.har...60...45B
That's the big stuff even the solar wind is dumping debris from the local interstellar medium
http://onlinelibr...abstract
The lightning comment was for WG but serves as another example of you not reading.
Looks like your so blinded by dogma your unable to perceive it as faith. Science evolves what we consider truth today will be tomorrow's superstition.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2014
@yep

You don't even understand the discredited "expansion theory" you support. Every published article (and related videos) claim the earth is expanding from within, not from accretion.

Neither one of your links addresses accretion, that's a connection you make without any supporting evidence.

Show me where WG said anything about lightning on this thread.

"Looks like your so blinded by dogma your unable to perceive it as faith."
A classic case of projection.



cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2014
Show me where WG said anything about lightning on this thread.


Well, it's simple English, sire...
Electrical discharge is a RESULT of matter and magnetic interaction, not the CAUSE...
sheesh... what's so hard to get about that?


Clearly it is stupidity laced with malice. Did you personally release the Agent Orange, or drink it perhaps.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
@cantdrive

I never sprayed or drank Agent Orange but I was exposed to it. That's not important though, it's the legacy we left in Vietnam.

http://www.dailym...cts.html
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2014
CD,
You're personally an ass for that comment To V V.

As to lightning - I said nothing. Thin coats of dust can facilitate static electrical buildup and discharge. That's all. The required amount of charge and conditions for lightning is IMMENSELY different...
yep
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
Accretion is the increase of mass. Mass increases pressure (compression). Pressure increases temperature. Increased temperature causes expansion. It's that easy.
External as well as internal expansion.

"Electrical discharge" aka lightning, hello, are you guys really that oblivious?

We have tons of space debris falling on us how hard can that be to understand in those links?
Extrapolate that to the millions of years the earth has been getting dumped on.

Project some awareness into yourselves.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
Accretion is the increase of mass. Mass increases pressure (compression). Pressure increases temperature. Increased temperature causes expansion. Extrapolate that to the millions of years the earth has been getting dumped on.


And expansion cause increase in surface area which then provides a larger cooling area, causing condensation, resulting in contraction, which yada, yada, yada...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
Science proves the earth is expanding. What do you think accretion is?

Accretion is the addition of matter, thusly mass to the surface of the accreting body.
yep
3 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
More surface area more solar irradiation, of course our orbit has quite an effect on this variable.
http://www.indian...itch.htm
Vietvet
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
More surface area more solar irradiation, of course our orbit has quite an effect on this variable.
http://www.indian...itch.htm


And what has this to do with this thread?
yep
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
The fact you are unable to read. Or is it laced malice as CD suggested?
Here try this one as part of our discussion as it is "empirical" proof of expansion.
http://www.annals...iew/4951
Then extrapolate this over time, like the last 180 million years when most of the worlds ocean basins and mountain ranges formed according to our core sampling and other data.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Here is an article that describes exactly what is being claimed by the non-flat earthers. The Earth is both growing in mass and Earth's orbit is growing. The growing mass supporting accretion. The growing orbit applying less "gravitational pressure" or solar influence on the Earth which would allow for expansion. Not to mention the direct evidence for the expanding Earth.

http://www.newsci...H-ZRdWXY
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
The fact you are unable to read. Or is it laced malice as CD suggested?
Here try this one as part of our discussion as it is "empirical" proof of expansion.
http://www.annals...iew/4951
Then extrapolate this over time, like the last 180 million years when most of the worlds ocean basins and mountain ranges formed according to our core sampling and other data.


You're the one that obviously can't read. Your link flatly rejects an increase in Earth's mass. There goes your "expansion" by accretion.

For all the authors dubious formulas, assumptions and interpretations of data, there is a fatal flaw. No where in their paper do they offer an explanation for expansion. They ignore what is known about plate tectonics, instead use a model devoid of real data.

The one line that really cracked me up was their statement that "many scientist" believe in the expansion theory.

Vietvet
3 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
More surface area more solar irradiation, of course our orbit has quite an effect on this variable.
http://www.indian...itch.htm


And what has this to do with this thread?


When I asked that question I was laying a trap. I knew you were trying to link expansion and d EU. Two crackpot ideas in one thread.
Vietvet
3 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
Here is an article that describes exactly what is being claimed by the non-flat earthers. The Earth is both growing in mass and Earth's orbit is growing. The growing mass supporting accretion. The growing orbit applying less "gravitational pressure" or solar influence on the Earth which would allow for expansion. Not to mention the direct evidence for the expanding Earth.

http://www.newsci...H-ZRdWXY


Your link says nothing about Earth increasing in mass. You're even dumber than I thought.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
More surface area more solar irradiation, of course our orbit has quite an effect on this variable.
http://www.indian...itch.htm


And what has this to do with this thread?


When I asked that question I was laying a trap. I knew you were trying to link expansion and d EU. Two crackpot ideas in one thread.

Looky there, laying a trap and stepping in it yourself via strawman stupidity. There is no mention of EU in any of these responses, only your own nonsensical assumptions.
Vietvet
3.6 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
"Looky there, laying a trap and stepping in it yourself via strawman stupidity. There is no mention of EU in any of these responses, only your own nonsensical assumptions."

I'd say it is a fair assumption, as you and yep think we live in an Electric Universe.

yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
I'd say its a fair to say you have a serious reading problem.
My last link was about Eccentricity not Electricity the only trap here is in your mind.

But to keep you happy....
I have read the power input to the earth from the sun is 1.2e15 W which is a nearly 50kg increase in mass per hour or the equivalent of 49,000 Hiroshima bombs per hour.
Seems like quite a bit of juice, is it feeding the earths dynamos? Is it causing expansion from the core? It definitely effects the outsides of planets who knows what is going on inside?
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
I'd say its a fair to say you have a serious reading problem.
My last link was about Eccentricity not Electricity the only trap here is in your mind.

But to keep you happy....
I have read the power input to the earth from the sun is 1.2e15 W which is a nearly 50kg increase in mass per hour or the equivalent of 49,000 Hiroshima bombs per hour.
Seems like quite a bit of juice, is it feeding the earths dynamos? Is it causing expansion from the core? It definitely effects the outsides of planets who knows what is going on inside?


Links?

Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
@yep
"I'd say its a fair to say you have a serious reading problem.
My last link was about Eccentricity not Electricity the only trap here is in your mind."

So what does relevance does Eccentricity have to do with this thread?
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2014
@yep
"I have read the power input to the earth from the sun is 1.2e15 W which is a nearly 50kg increase in mass per hour or the equivalent of 49,000 Hiroshima bombs per hour.
Seems like quite a bit of juice, is it feeding the earths dynamos? Is it causing expansion from the core? It definitely effects the outsides of planets who knows what is going on inside?"

You're sounding desperate now.

What are you going to throw at the wall next to see what sticks?
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
Let me add you have a comprehension problem along with your reading problem.
Yes, I am desperate for you to get a clue. Maybe you will trap one.
Keep on playing those reindeer games mkay.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
The fact you are unable to read. Or is it laced malice as CD suggested?
Here try this one as part of our discussion as it is "empirical" proof of expansion.
http://www.annals...iew/4951
Then extrapolate this over time, like the last 180 million years when most of the worlds ocean basins and mountain ranges formed according to our core sampling and other data.


You haven't addressed why you used the above link to prove expansion by accretion when the authors deny the earth isn't gaining mass.
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
Maybe if you really read the link you would know what the authors said instead of projecting your beliefs on it, when did you become Verkle?
From the conclusion "Our investigations show that the earth is expanding"
As for the mass they have different math for each of the three possibilities and end by saying "this problem needs to be solved"
I'm starting to think CD is right about you.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
From your link.

"Indeed, here we can indicate that our space-gravimetric
observations do not support the mass growth hypothesis"

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
@yep
From your link

"At present, there is no definite evidence showing that
the mass of the Earth is increasing. Hence, we can assume
that the Earth mass M holds invariant and only the Earth's
volume changes with time in our present investigations."
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
But other observations do so read the whole paper.
Though from the how it's going that's probably pointless because you're just going to see what you believe and your comprehension and ability to connect the dots as evidenced by this thread have been severely lacking, or is it malice and game playing?
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2014
But other observations do so read the whole paper.
Though from the how it's going that's probably pointless because you're just going to see what you believe and your comprehension and ability to connect the dots as evidenced by this thread have been severely lacking, or is it malice and game playing?


I have read the paper several times and I'm far from convinced. They set out to prove the the earth is expanding, made some dubious assumptions and constructed a model of the earth's interior not based on reality.

I found a link I think you'll find interesting.

http://www.nasa.g...816.html
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2014
But other observations do so read the whole paper.
Though from the how it's going that's probably pointless because you're just going to see what you believe and your comprehension and ability to connect the dots as evidenced by this thread have been severely lacking, or is it malice and game playing?


It is pointless since you believe pseudoscience and I don't. Maybe it's because I'm well grounded in geology, have lived long enough to witness the development plate tectonics and understand it's mechanisms. Science isn't "connecting dots". Science is built on evidence obeying the laws of physics. Plate tectonics describes the way the world is, an expanding earth is an interesting idea that doesn't match observation and the data.

The most laughable part of an expanding earth is the claim that it is inflating from within, though you must surely know that. What is even funnier, some adherents admit they don't know the reason for the inflation, it just is.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.