Hydroplate Theory

[Southtown]

Come on Southtown, you received some real questions, can you answer them?

LOL, give me a minute. Working on another reply, yes. I just thought I would say g'bye real fast.

[modest]

You misunderstand. The Oort has never been observed but is theorized to contain all the comets before they are flung inward by the gas giants. Hydroplate instead theorizes that the short-period comets (aggregate ejecta from earth) were flung outward by the gas giants along with solar radiation. The asteroid belt is assumed by hydroplate to consist of the same types of elements as comets but with a greater dust-to-water ratio making them harder to fling outward via gravitational interaction and more susceptible to the more evenly distributed solar wind.

 

Following up on Buffy's post earlier,

Let's try something simple.

 

First, estimate the amount of water in the comets currently orbiting the sun.

 

Second, determine the amount of energy required accelerate that amount of water into the observed orbits of at least 10 comets. To simplify this process, use only Newtonian mechanics, ignoring Einsteinian effects.

 

Third describe the timing and mechanisms required for the "squirting" to a) achieve the observed cometary orbits and b) explain why the distribution is not greater than observed.

 

In order to be consistent with your indignation about "magical" processes, attempt to do this exercise without requirement for an unobservable designer.

 

The Universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper, :phones:

Buffy

 

We can compare the amount of energy available by granite collapsing to a lower point in earth's gravitational field to the amount of energy needed to move rock and water to a higher point in the sun's gravitational field.

 

As the OP doesn't really specify the distance that the granite was displaced, yet we need to start somewhere, I'll say that the 16 km (10 mile) layer of granite dropped 10 kilometers globally.

 

For every kilogram on earth dropping 10 kilometers the available energy is:

 

[math]\Phi_e = \frac{GM_e}{r_1} - \frac{GM_e}{r_2}[/math]

[math]\Phi_e = \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6347000} - \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6357000}[/math]

[math]\Phi_e = 9.87 \times 10^4 \ \mbox{Joules}[/math]

 

For every kilogram moved from the earth to the asteroid belt the needed energy is:

 

[math]\Phi_{ab} = \frac{GM_s}{r_1} - \frac{GM_s}{r_2}[/math]

[math]\Phi_{ab} = \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(1.99 \times 10^{30})}{1.50 \times 10^{11}} - \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(1.99 \times 10^{30})}{4.19 \times 10^{11}}[/math]

[math]\Phi_{ab} = 5.70 \times 10^8 \ \mbox{Joules}[/math]

 

The ratio of [math]\Phi_e[/math] to [math]\Phi_{ab}[/math] is:

[math]9.87 \times 10^4 / 5.70 \times 10^8[/math] or,

[math]1.73 \times 10^{-4}[/math]

This means it is impossible by the definition of gravitational potential energy and conservation of energy to move more than 1.73 x 10^-4 kg from earth to the asteroid belt with the energy of one kilogram of mass falling 10 kilometers on the surface of the earth. Knowing the mass of granite proposed to have been displaced downward on earth, we can put an upper limit to the mass of the asteroid belt.

 

The volume of displaced granite is:

[math]V = \frac{4}{3} \pi ({r_1}^3 - {r_2}^3)[/math]

[math]V = \frac{4}{3} \pi ({(6347000)}^3 - {(6337000)}^3)[/math]

[math]V = 5.05 \times 10^{18} \ m^3[/math]

multiplied by density gives mass:

[math]m_e = (5.05 \times 10^{18} \ m^3) \cdot (2750 \ kg/m^3) = 1.39 \times 10^{22} \ kg[/math]

multiplied by our ratio to find an upper limit on the mass of the belt:

[math]m_{ab} = (1.39 \times 10^{22} \ kg) \cdot (1.73 \times 10^{-4}) = 2.4 \times 10^{18} \ kg [/math]

 

Therefore, if the asteroid belt is actually more massive than 2.4 x 10¹⁸ kilograms then it would be physically impossible for this theory to work even if the mechanism of falling granite were perfectly efficient in launching this material into a solar orbit with no loss of energy to heat and other things.

 

In fact, there are single asteroids in the belt with a greater mass than this (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea are all each more massive individually than our total energy budget allows). Therefore, without some form of magic that can move the asteroid belt out to a further orbit in a few thousand years, this theory is impossible and nonsensical.

 

~modest

[stereologist]

Thanks Modest for showing that the asteroids invalidate the theory as does the comet claim.

[Moontanman]

LOL, give me a minute. Working on another reply, yes. I just thought I would say g'bye real fast.

 

Hmmm, it's been an hour, any clues yet?

[Southtown]

Hmmm, it's been an hour, any clues yet?

Well you guys keep on adding to it, just when I think I'm done... How 'bout adding a few more snide remarks, I don't yet feel denigrated enough.

[Moontanman]

Well I just want post #185 answered.......

[Southtown]

I have that much already. Stereologist and Modest, give me a little more time please.

 

One question that really needs to be answered is if indeed this hydroplate theory is true then how did the creatures living in the sea and in freshwater survive such a catastrophic out flow of SC super hot[,] ...mineral[-]laden water?

 

Aquatic creatures depend on a balance of not only dissolved salts in the correct amounts not to mention the right salts to survive. Such an out flow of water would have killed every sea creature in the earths oceans just by the salt content being wrong or the wrong dissolved minerals being in the water.

 

Freshwater animals would have been wiped out immediately. Things like star fish and most other sea animals are really sensitive top [sic] the salt content of the water[, so] it doesn't take much change to kill them outright.

About salinity, consider Walt Brown's own reply to this specific question regarding the aquatic creatures and the water salinity.

 

Then you have the water temps. A great many sea animals also depend on temps being with in certain parameters. Such a tremendous release of super hot water would have killed all animal life in the ocean simply by cooking them.

Regarding the temperature, the supercritical eruption was an ionized plasma consisting of water and basalt/granite (as silverslith noted) and so would consume vast amounts of it's own energy during expansion into space (as opposed to emitting) where it froze, agglomerated, and (partially) fell back to earth's surface where each projectile's temperature countered the underlying friction (to whatever degree).

 

Then I ask, where did all the water go after the flood was over? Back under the continents? This whole idea is fatally flawed just from the stand point of the survival of sea creatures. Where did all the extra water go? to cover the entire earth mountains and all would take a volume of water bigger than all the water currently in the earths oceans by a factor of at least three or four. Where did it go? If hydroplate theory cannot answer these questions it is debunked completely no matter what else it says....

Well, more specifically the water did not sink mysteriously nor did it evaporate. The continental fragments contracted and thickened. So in other words the land technically rose above the water.

[Moontanman]

I have that much already. Stereologist and Modest, give me a little more time please.

 

 

About salinity, consider Walt Brown's own reply to this specific question regarding the aquatic creatures and the water salinity.

 

I read his explanation, the man is a bald faced lier. what he proposes is totally impossible. Most marine invertebrates would die if presented with a 10% salinity change. Most freshwater fish will die immediately with a 1/3 salinity change. This doesn't even count the mineral content of the water that gushed up from the earth, marine fish and invertebrates need quite specific salts to be dissolved in their water not just anything will do. This is the most outrageous lie I have ever seen presented as the truth. I'm not kidding this is totally a lie, it is totally false information presented as the truth. Walt is a bald faced lier, I'd slap the bastard if he was here.

 

Regarding the temperature, the supercritical eruption was an ionized plasma consisting of water and basalt/granite (as silverslith noted) and so would consume vast amounts of it's own energy during expansion into space (as opposed to emitting) where it froze, agglomerated, and (partially) fell back to earth's surface where each projectile's temperature countered the underlying friction (to whatever degree).

 

I'll let someone else deal with this but it pegs my BS meter completly.

 

 

Well, more specifically the water did not sink mysteriously nor did it evaporate. The continental fragments contracted and thickened. So in other words the land technically rose above the water.

 

We are talking about six miles of water Southtown, six miles, are you saying the continents fell then rose six miles? We are talking about 3.9 times the Earths current ocean volume. (yeah, I did the math!)

[stereologist]

Just a rough calculation here, but it looks like the water would have to be 1550km deep on the earth to account for all of the comets.

 

Ouch. That's a lot of water.

[Moontanman]

On top of the lie he proposes natural selection would breed new fishes for freshwater and salt water, I am just blown away by the complete and total audacity of this guy.

[Southtown]

I read his explanation, the man is a bald faced lier. what he proposes is totally impossible. Most marine invertebrates would die if presented with a 10% salinity change. Most freshwater fish will die immediately with a 1/3 salinity change. This doesn't even count the mineral content of the water that gushed up from the earth, marine fish and invertebrates need quite specific salts to be dissolved in their water not just anything will do. This is the most outrageous lie I have ever seen presented as the truth. I'm not kidding this is totally a lie, it is totally false information presented as the truth. Walt is a bald faced lier, I'd slap the bastard if he was here.

Ok, I'm listening. Can you give me some references to support those statements, please? In the meantime, I'll reiterate. The jist of Walt's aquatic life explanation is that (1) there were already both salt and freshwater adapted species from variance in the preflood seas, (2) fresh and salt water would take time to mix, and (3) fresh water floats above seawater in large quantities, which would explain how freshwater organisms could get trapped in lakes and rivers after the continents thickened. Remember it doesn't take a whole lot of fish to repopulate over time.

"

Freshwater fish have greater salinity in their blood (less concentration of water) than is in the water they swim in, so water seeps into their blood by osmosis. To correct this problem, freshwater fish seldom drink, and their kidneys secrete a watery urine. Conversely, saltwater fish have less salinity in their blood than is in their saline environment, so osmosis forces water from their bodies. Their kidneys pump out so little water that saltwater fish seldom urinate.

"

I'll let someone else deal with this but it pegs my BS meter completly.

I appreciate you hangin' with me on this. But the question begs, do you think that from intuition, or from proven science?

 

We are talking about six miles of water Southtown, six miles, are you saying the continents fell then rose six miles?

We're not talking about six miles of water. You say that because of the current height of say, Everest, correct? The water escaping from beneath the continents allowed them to 'deflate' or sink, and after rupturing, contracted and buckled, causing the dry land as we know it to form. Consider the submerged continental shelves.

[stereologist]

Just read through Walt Brown write up and it tries somewhat poorly to avoid the obvious fact that the fish all die.

 

Here's a simple statement:

Fish have a water problem.

 

This is from: Freshwater fish in salt water

If you put a freshwater fish into saltwater, most fish would lose weight

(from losing water from its body) and eventually die. Approximately 2% of all 21000

species of fish actually move from freshwater to saltwater or from salt to fresh at some

point in their lives, the move would kill any other fish. But even with these special

varieties of fish, the move must be gradual so their bodies can adjust, or they too,

will die from the change.

 

From Salinity and Transportation of Freshwater Fish we see another part of the important issues left off by Brown; fish have to absorb salt. It's not just water regulation. Thereis also salt regulation.

 

In order to maintain their salinity level, fish are constantly excreting urine. At the same time, they absorb salt from the water via special cells in their gills. The constant exchange of minerals and water is crucial for survival of the fish.

 

Now here are two statements. One claims that the event is so energetic it produces plasma and the other says that it hardly caused the waters to mix!

 

Regarding the temperature, the supercritical eruption was an ionized plasma consisting of water and basalt/granite (as silverslith noted) and so would consume vast amounts of it's own energy during expansion into space (as opposed to emitting) where it froze, agglomerated, and (partially) fell back to earth's surface where each projectile's temperature countered the underlying friction (to whatever degree).

 

Salty, subterranean water, erupting onto the earth’s surface, would not have rapidly mixed with the less salty preflood seas.

 

Besides, preflood seas would have tended to “float” on the denser, muddier, saltier water.

I guess that requires the caveat that the waters did not end up in the Kuiper Belt.

 

So I guess the best test for this idea - not a theory - is to look for frozen fish in the Kuiper belt! I'm definitely laughing out loud. I can see it now in specialty stores:

 

Plasma frozen fish straight from the Kuiper Belt canneries - delicious!

[stereologist]

We're not talking about six miles of water.

 

Oh you are correct sir. It's not 6 miles its 1550km of water! That's 960 miles for the SI impaired.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I'm listening. Can you give me some references to support those statements, please? In the meantime, I'll reiterate. The jist of Walt's aquatic life explanation is that (1) there were already both salt and freshwater adapted species from variance in the preflood seas, (2) fresh and salt water would take time to mix, and (3) fresh water floats above seawater in large quantities, which would explain how freshwater organisms could get trapped in lakes and rivers after the continents thickened. Remember it doesn't take a whole lot of fish to repopulate over time.

 

Ok first of all i could name a thousand species of marine invertebrates that could not survive such a disruption of their environment, hundreds of freshwater inverts that would be similarly affected this would just be a small fraction of the invertebrate animals that could not survive such a environmental disaster. It can easily be shown that coral reefs are older than 5000 years, all corals would have been wiped out completely by such an event. This doesn't even count the fishes, many thousands of of species of fish both fresh and salt that would die immediately from such a disruption. yes freshwater floats above salt water for a short while in very calm conditions or if the freshwater comes in huge volumes but it does mix a lot faster than this guy seems to think, but under the kind of forces this guy is talking about the waters would mix almost immediately. It takes very little agitation to mix salt water and freshwater.

 

I appreciate you hangin' with me on this. But the question begs, do you think that from intuition, or from proven science?

 

For me this one is intuition, that is why I said I'll let others handle this one.

 

We're not talking about six miles of water. You say that because of the current height of say, Everest, correct? The water escaping from beneath the continents allowed them to 'deflate' or sink, and after rupturing, contracted and buckled, causing the dry land as we know it to form. Consider the submerged continental shelves.

 

So you are saying there was much more land before this event? Can you provide any evidence of this? the continental shelves are only out to about 200 feet deep, not nearly enough to account for 5.09 billion cu.km. of water.

[stereologist]

The jist of Walt's aquatic life explanation is that (1) there were already both salt and freshwater adapted species from variance in the preflood seas, (2) fresh and salt water would take time to mix, and (3) fresh water floats above seawater in large quantities, which would explain how freshwater organisms could get trapped in lakes and rivers after the continents thickened. Remember it doesn't take a whole lot of fish to repopulate over time.

 

1. Oceans today run 33-37 ppt. That's not much variation. Trout die in it as do most freshwater fish.

Since freshwater fish normally cannot tolerate any salinity, salinity must be kept under 3ppm

 

2 and 3. The time to mix is short. The stratification of freshwater over saline water occurs when mixing does not occur.

The claim is of an event powerful enough to eject water in space!

[Buffy]

Well, more specifically the water did not sink mysteriously nor did it evaporate. The continental fragments contracted and thickened. So in other words the land technically rose above the water.

Unless you change the laws of physics, such deformation in a "short" period of time is physically impossible. Explaining why does require of both physics and geology, which I won't explain here, because it's accepted science: those who wish to argue the contrary are obligated to explain why the laws of physics were temporarily suspended in order to effect this event.

 

Only exceptionally rational men can afford to be absurd,

Buffy

[Moontanman]

The stratification of fresh water over salt is very short lived event in the natural world, a few hours for the tremendous outflow of the Amazon. this guy actually invokes natural selection to say that the rivers would have been repopulated. I'd love to be able to say his ignorant or even stupid but he's not. He is a deceiver, his goal is to deceive people, nothing less. He thinks like a lot of the fundamentalists do, lying is ok as long as it serves the cause and brings the people who are ignorant of the reality of the situation to the lies of the bible. It is criminal for him to do this. There are more than enough nails here to close the coffin on this lying bastards claims.