Re: gravity theory
- From: auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian)
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:28:33 +0200
Stuart <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This is the memo Floppy didn't get:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/03/scimercu
ry103.xml
No doubt the Eers will spin that as "negative expansion"
Poor Mercury. Just didn't get enough of the planetary "miracle grow"
and is just a poor sunted planet.
Jeez... can't you underdstand that "shrinking" is the only possible
explanation in the current framework!!!
I remind you that it is currently thought that planet cool down over
time. It results that any observable tectonic activity for Mercury like
planets could only be due to shrinking.
Yep, except that the current paradigm is wrong. Planet do not cool down
and display increased activity (like Mars). All the features (scarps,
faults) that are currently attributed to shrinking can be equally
attributed to growing.
Besides, the spider thing is clearly related to diapiric rise. The
extension fractures leaves no doubt about it:
<http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/mercury%20Spider.jpg>
Go back to your cave Stuart Weinstein. You're too bad.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gravity theory
- From: josephus
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Stuart
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Landy
- Re: gravity theory
- References:
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Florian
- Re: gravity theory
- From: George
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Florian
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Stuart
- Re: gravity theory
- From: Stuart
- Re: gravity theory
- Prev by Date: Re: gravity theory
- Next by Date: Re: Where did the extra mass come from?
- Previous by thread: Re: gravity theory
- Next by thread: Re: gravity theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|