Hydroplate Theory

[Southtown]

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.

Ok, fine. I admit I can't keep up with you guys. You've all given me a great bit to chew on, and I appreciate it.

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.

This part is all down river. I don't really care why. As a born and raised fundamentalist, I'm just asking for science as an honestly curious person (I know that I play the devil's advocate well) but as to Homeboy's character, who gives a ****?

 

I'll get back with ya'll later, but for now I've got a lot of googling to do, cuz I'm an unedumacated broke joke.

[Southtown]

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.

Ok, so to be specific, I have to explain how the continents can deform without fracturing or causing pressurized pockets of magma? Gimme a clue please. =)

 

Only exceptionally rational men can afford to be absurd,

Buffy

I can barely afford to pay attention.

[modest]

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!:eek:

 

This plasma claim is also a red flag, as I'm sure you agree.

 

The total energy budget of everything accomplished must be less than the energy gained by the granite layer falling and loosing gravitational potential energy. That energy, from my last post, is 9.87 x 10⁴ Joules per kilogram.

 

The total mass of falling granite was 1.39 x 10²² kg. The total energy budge which cannot be exceeded in all of the changes of the system is then:

[math]E_{total} = (9.87 \times 10^4 \ j/kg) \times (1.39 \times 10^{22} \ kg) = 1.37 \times 10^{27} \ \mbox{Joules}[/math]

 

Now then, if we say "such and such was accomplished in this process" then the energy of 'such and such' must be less than 1.37 x 10²⁷.

 

Rock in the mantel is liquid. If we are supposedly turning it into a gas or a plasma then energy is required. Assuming that the amount of material being vaporized is equal to the mass of the asteroid belt and assuming that we are only having to heat it up 400 degrees and ignoring the extra energy required to change the state of the material then the energy required is:

[math]Q = mC \Delta T[/math]

Where Q is the energy needed, m is the mass, C is the specific heat capacity, and T is the change in temperature. The energy required is:

[math]Q = (3.0 \times 10^{21} \ kg) (1000 \ J/kg) (100) = 1.2 \times 10^{27} \ \mbox{Joules}[/math]

 

In other words, Just heating up the amount of mass we're talking about 400 degrees Celsius uses up the entire energy budget. There's none left to launch things into different solar orbits which itself would have required far too much energy.

 

There is simply not enough potential energy in the weight of Earth's granite to accomplish such grandiose things. When you drop 1 kilogram of mass 1 meter the result cannot be lifting several hundreds of kilograms several hundred kilometers. The one thing can't do the other. The universe doesn't work that way.

 

~modest

[Buffy]

Ok, so to be specific, I have to explain how the continents can deform without fracturing or causing pressurized pockets of magma? Gimme a clue please. =)

Start thinking about distances moved: you're contemplating moving gigantic quantities of matter miles in a very short period of time (40 days of the flood? a few sequences of "begats"?). Take that quantity and use Newton to determine how much energy would have to be released to do that moving, and consider what sources of energy exist in a form that could release the necessary energy in the requisite amount of time.

 

You'll find that it's well beyond all of the nuclear weapons we have ever produced, and in fact all of the geological events (see 8913) that have occurred in the last 500 million years. We're talking a lot of energy, and it simply doesn't exist in the short bursts that is required by this theory. (As Modest demonstrates so well in the preceding post )

 

Next yes, it would be a good idea to look at what happens when such energy is released rapidly: you do not get the fine layers of sediment to first shake out cleanly and then immediately deform in such complex ways as can be seen in virtually any geological formation visible just about anywhere you look.

 

It's the same as the misunderstanding you displayed earlier about meteorites somehow bouncing or dragging: the amount of energy being release causes explosive vaporization of solid rock. It's not like a little kid throwing a superball really really hard. It's so many orders of magnitude larger than human experience, that any intuitive thoughts you might have about the topic are mindbogglingly wrong.

 

My daughter and I were watching a horrendously silly "killer-meteor-hits-Earth" TV movie a couple of weeks ago and they had the usual animation of a meteor moving into the atmosphere at a rate that would take a couple of minutes for it to make it through the atmostphere. I busted out laughing and to her quizzical look I said,

 

"Do the math: the typical meteor is moving through the solar system at at least 20,000 miles an hour [note: otherwise the earth would capture most of them and they'd be orbiting us!]: that's 300+ miles per minute or just under 6 miles per second. Our atmosphere is just 60 miles high, so that meteor would go from no frictional flames to crater in less time than that entire shot! Zzzzboom! Bye bye dinos!"

 

Hollywood gives people the strangest concepts of the "real world" that so skew our perceptions that we really don't know what's true until we really study it.

 

I know that these silly elements of Hydroplate might actually make a bad SciFi film, but it certainly violates even the farthest reaches of reality....

 

He who is not aware of his ignorance will only be misled by his knowledge, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Ok, fine. I admit I can't keep up with you guys. You've all given me a great bit to chew on, and I appreciate it.

 

You keep up quite well southtown, you are just running in the wrong direction.

 

This part is all down river. I don't really care why. As a born and raised fundamentalist, I'm just asking for science as an honestly curious person (I know that I play the devil's advocate well) but as to Homeboy's character, who gives a ****?

 

You should give a ****, this guy is making fools of eveyone he influences. It's really criminal to do this.

 

 

I'll get back with ya'll later, but for now I've got a lot of googling to do, cuz I'm an unedumacated broke joke.

 

You are obviously not uneducated and you obviously are looking for the truth. My agenda is the truth, i know I crack on the religious but it's because they do not seek the truth, only their version of the big lie. I am not exactly formally educated but if you listen to what is going on long enough anyone can learn, i did , if i can anyone can.

[stereologist]

Start thinking about distances moved: you're contemplating moving gigantic quantities of matter miles in a very short period of time (40 days of the flood? a few sequences of "begats"?).

 

BTW, Buffy its 40 days of rain and some 300 days that Noah is floating around looking for a place to land. Still a short period of time.

 

- volume fails

- energy fails

- sea life survival fails

- impacts fail

 

So Southtown I think you are seeing why I have been calling hydroplate an idea and not a theory. The claims made by hydroplate can be tested. Not one of these claims works out - not even close. As I've stated before I've been to several creationist lectures. I go there out of curiosity. On at least 2 occasions the lecturer has turned to the audience and said something along the lines of, "I suppose this requires a miracle and I know one audience that has no trouble with miracles." The presenter knows that what he is presenting does not work as science. The audience laughs and the lecturer continues on with what he continues to call a creation science theory.

 

The flaws in Hydroplate are simple to point out. This is what science has been doing for decades with plate tectonics. Point out what works and what doesn't work. Try to figure out what is wrong with the theory and see if the theory can be fixed or needs to be replaced. Some of the issues such as plate rigidity that that you mentioned are not shunned or avoided by geologists. They know that the plates are not perfectly rigid. They know that the earth isn't spherical. The theory has long since been tested against these issues and countless others.

 

The next time you encounter such a presentation you can learn to ask questions about the material and begin to see if the claims are correct or not. That is what science is all about - testing claims and being willing to replace theories with better theories.

[Southtown]

Originally posted by stereologist

I missed a bunch of posts - been out of town. Did we ever get the math that shows that the volume of the comets is greater than 10 times the volume of the earth?

 

Originally Posted by stereologist

Are you claiming that the asteroids were created by the hydroplate event?

 

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Are you saying the asteriods were ejected from the Earth too?

Yes, and the comets. Total mass: 1.837 * 10²¹ kg (4.92 * 10^-4 Earth mass?) Four percent Lunar mass (1.837 * 10²¹ kg) for the asteroids ^[*] and a negligible ~10^-10 Earth mass (5.9742 * 10¹⁴ kg) for the "known" comets. ^[*] But, however, it would obviously make sense to increase this significantly to compensate for the objects that have already turned into craters. (Not sure yet what Brown says on this, still looking.)

 

Turns out, though, that the Kuiper Belt is not part of the hydroplate theory. My bad Stereologist, sorry.

 

And, Modest, there are other propulsion mechanisms proposed by the hydroplate theory to consider. See my reply to you below.

 

:hihi: what is obvious is that the thread contains all the geological rebuttal that is necessary.

What harm is there in more [exhaustive] rebuttal?

 

[Tedrick79's] rant that usually said like this,

"Who saw the Grand Canyon form? Did you? Who saw a dinosaur walk on the earth? DId you? We don't know if those are true, but we do have the word of almighty to give us assurances about what is true."...

Not that I'm trying to defend tedrick79 or anything, but I would like to know which proponents of the hydroplate theory invoked miracles and what exactly was said.

 

So, i live on the oldest, most stable, bit of rock on the planet.

The mechanism of residual radioactivity in the standard model (used for dating) is not the same as the mechanism for residual radioactivity in the hydroplate theory. See my reply to Modest.

 

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.

 

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.

I think it's only 1.2 km. Brown says the subterranean water was on average 3/4 miles deep. ^[*] Also, the water was pressurized to 427 MPa and therefore compressed to about half its normal volume. ^[*] Here's Brown's page on "required energy" for your enjoyment. ^[*] Additionally, not all of the granite was suspended, some areas of granite were relatively thicker, and so rested on the lower basalt layer. ^[*] So the "water" was basically pooled beneath the thinner granite. This means the rupture likely followed the "continental divides" so-to-speak, but this point is more toward the aquatic-life issue, I guess.

 

I alluded to other propulsion mechanisms earlier. Well Brown lists these as the only [direct] propulsion sources. ^[*]

• tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
• chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
• potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
• nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” (See note)

Another propulsion mechanism specific to asteroids that Brown (mistakenly?) lists elsewhere is the radiometer effect. ^[*]

 

Note: The "chapter" regarding radioactivity is not yet published online. (I haven't seen the latest print edition.) Here is the entirety of information regarding point four above from Brown's site.^[*]

“The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” chapter is not yet part of this book. Because of its highly technical nature, the material will be publicly released only when I can have a very high degree of confidence in the accuracy of all its details. The chapter’s summary (abstract) reads as follows:

 

SUMMARY: Electrical activity produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust and the piezoelectric effect generated huge voltages. For weeks, this resulted in powerful surges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.

 

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactive material claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.

 

A draft of this chapter can be requested by anyone who

• has a strong background in nuclear physics,
• has read the entire hydroplate theory, and
• will provide a private, written critique of the chapter.

Interested individuals should email their requests to:

[email protected]

 

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.

I believe you have got Brown on this point, after considering both your arguments. I have to take both of you at your word for the most part, however. And the only research I've been able to turn up with is salinity tolerance at differing embryo stages, ^[*] plus my intuition that the crust fractured along continental ridges, and an inkling of probability distribution.

 

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.

This isn't really a point. The contention between religionists and evolutionists can be summed up with the term "spontaneous generation." Nobody's arguing against natural selection. (Some nuts maybe.) But seriously, just how diverse could species become in five millennia? Or "adapted" at least considering embryonic adaptability?

 

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.

I did a quick search on coral and came up with this. ^[*]

“

The 7000-year-old coral communities of Moreton Bay are telling a curious tale, expanding when sea-levels rise or water quality improves, then declining when current circulation becomes more restricted.”

Unless you change the laws of physics, such deformation in a "short" period of time is physically impossible.

Yeah, you call on me to explain how granite can deform under heat, pressure and gravity in a little under a year, but yet rock can vaporize explosively under "other" conditions?

[Moontanman]

I think you are grasping at straws now southtown, I'll comment on the part of this I am knowledgeable about. Coral reefs world wide would have been completely destroyed by the upheaval described by hyrdroplate theory. For all practical purposes all marine invertebrate animals would have been wiped out as would have been all marine fishes. I doubt even a tiny number of marine animals could have survived such a holocaust. Freshwater animals would have, if it is possible, faired far worse than marine. Very few freshwater fish can withstand even a 10% seawater. Catfishes are particularly vulnerable (one of my favorites) but most other freshwater fish would have died outright just from the salinity fluctuations. The temperature extremes would have killed off most if not all sea life as well. Tropical fish are very vulnerable to low temps and many temperate fishes are vulnerable to high temps. Then of course you have land plants, all forests world wide would have been devastated. There is no evidence of any such effects. A world wide flood only 5,000 years ago would have left extreme traces everywhere. Then of course you have the amphibians. Amphibians are very sensitive to marine conditions, there are no marine amphibians. Creatures like Hellbender's, Mudpuppies, Sirens, Amphiumas, Frogs, Toads, Salamanders, and Caecilians would have been killed immediately. If hydroplate theory cannot get past the "problem" of aquatic animals then it fails miserably no matter how well it explains everything else.

 

[stereologist]

So now you are claiming that the asteroids have a terrestrial origin. Can you explain why asteroids have the distribution they do instead of a distribution near earth's orbit?

[stereologist]

SUMMARY: Electrical activity produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust and the piezoelectric effect generated huge voltages. For weeks, this resulted in powerful surges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.

 

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactive material claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.

 

This is typical meaningless blather from creationists.

 

1. Please tell us how large a voltage we can expect from piezoelectric electric effects

2. Please tell us about any experiments in which "electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements"

3. Please explain how hydroplate supports metamictization

4. Please explain this Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

Yes, and the comets. Total mass: 1.837 * 10²¹ kg (4.92 * 10^-4 Earth mass?) Four percent Lunar mass (1.837 * 10²¹ kg) for the asteroids ^[*] and a negligible ~10^-10 Earth mass (5.9742 * 10¹⁴ kg) for the "known" comets. ^[*] But, however, it would obviously make sense to increase this significantly to compensate for the objects that have already turned into craters. (Not sure yet what Brown says on this, still looking.)

 

I think it was Modest that has already shown that there couldn't have been energy produced by the plate collapse to even eject the mass of the largest asteroid much less all the rest and comets too.

 

Turns out, though, that the Kuiper Belt is not part of the hydroplate theory. My bad Stereologist, sorry.

 

No problemo

 

And, Modest, there are other propulsion mechanisms proposed by the hydroplate theory to consider. See my reply to you below.

 

 

What harm is there in more [exhaustive] rebuttal? :hihi:

 

None what so ever.

 

Not that I'm trying to defend tedrick79 or anything, but I would like to know which proponents of the hydroplate theory invoked miracles and what exactly was said.

 

 

Well the idea that sea life survived is only possible if there was a miracle .....

 

 

The mechanism of residual radioactivity in the standard model (used for dating) is not the same as the mechanism for residual radioactivity in the hydroplate theory. See my reply to Modest.

 

I think it's only 1.2 km. Brown says the subterranean water was on average 3/4 miles deep. ^[*] Also, the water was pressurized to 427 MPa and therefore compressed to about half its normal volume. ^[*] Here's Brown's page on "required energy" for your enjoyment. ^[*] Additionally, not all of the granite was suspended, some areas of granite were relatively thicker, and so rested on the lower basalt layer. ^[*] So the "water" was basically pooled beneath the thinner granite. This means the rupture likely followed the "continental divides" so-to-speak, but this point is more toward the aquatic-life issue, I guess.

I alluded to other propulsion mechanisms earlier. Well Brown lists these as the only [direct] propulsion sources. ^[*]

• tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
• chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
• potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
• nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” (See note)

Another propulsion mechanism specific to asteroids that Brown (mistakenly?) lists elsewhere is the radiometer effect. ^[*]

 

None of this changes anything, if it was 1.2 K then the enrgy is much less the idea is even worse.

 

Note: The "chapter" regarding radioactivity is not yet published online. (I haven't seen the latest print edition.) Here is the entirety of information regarding point four above from Brown's site.^[*]

“The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” chapter is not yet part of this book. Because of its highly technical nature, the material will be publicly released only when I can have a very high degree of confidence in the accuracy of all its details. The chapter’s summary (abstract) reads as follows:

 

SUMMARY: Electrical activity produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust and the piezoelectric effect generated huge voltages. For weeks, this resulted in powerful surges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.

 

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactive material claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.

 

A draft of this chapter can be requested by anyone who

• has a strong background in nuclear physics,
• has read the entire hydroplate theory, and
• will provide a private, written critique of the chapter.

Interested individuals should email their requests to:

[email protected]

 

To my knowledge Electrical activity does not produce radioactivity, can you show where electrical activity produces radioactivity?

 

 

I believe you have got Brown on this point, after considering both your arguments. I have to take both of you at your word for the most part, however. And the only research I've been able to turn up with is salinity tolerance at differing embryo stages, ^[*] plus my intuition that the crust fractured along continental ridges, and an inkling of probability distribution.

 

It really doesn't matter where the Earth fractured the theory fails completely on the survival of sea life, fails completely.....

 

 

This isn't really a point. The contention between religionists and evolutionists can be summed up with the term "spontaneous generation." Nobody's arguing against natural selection. (Some nuts maybe.) But seriously, just how diverse could species become in five millennia? Or "adapted" at least considering embryonic adaptability?

 

Oh yes it is, creationists say all Earth life was created as it is, no evolution , no natural selction....

 

I did a quick search on coral and came up with this. ^[*]

“

The 7000-year-old coral communities of Moreton Bay are telling a curious tale, expanding when sea-levels rise or water quality improves, then declining when current circulation becomes more restricted.”

 

If the events had happened as proposed there would be no coral reefs at all after 5000 years ago....

 

Yeah, you call on me to explain how granite can deform under heat, pressure and gravity in a little under a year, but yet rock can vaporize explosively under "other" conditions?

 

Under what conditions does rock vaporise explosively?

 

I would like to point out the fact that Noah and his ark it's self was a miracle, how did Noah put 59,811 species of vertebrates, 950,000 species of insects on the ark? Not to mention how did 280,000 species of plants survive 300 days being submerged in salt water?

 

The closer you look the sillier the whole idea becomes......

[stereologist]

The whole hydroplate issue appears to boil down to the notion that the story of the flood in the bible does not work out. Where did the water come from and where did it go?

 

I've seen presentation where the claim was that the water was in thick clouds that protected people from UV and that is why the people earlier in the bible lived so long. Then it rains and clears up. That's why rainbows were not seen before - the clouds obscured them. Then someone points out that would raise the air pressure here at the surface to incredible levels seen in the bottom of the oceans today.

 

Then the notion must be that if it was not above us it must be underneath us. Then comes a number of ideas where the water didn't all come as rain, but there was rain and also a flood that came out of the ground. So along come people and ask how the water receded. So more tweaks and more tweaks and you end up with a system more cumbersome than the crystal spheres of the Greeks.

 

There's a lot of hand waving and claims that science can't explain things that are well explained. Then the hand waving and drum rolls are followed by the claim that the new idea explains everything when in fact it fails everywhere.

 

So we end up at the start. The biblical flood story does not match the world around us. Fine. That's been known for 500+ years. DaVinci wrote about this.

[Moontanman]

I agree Stereo, it's very sad how much outrageous bullshit people are willing to believe to try and torque reality into twisted shape it needs to be to make such absolute silliness seem true but they will ignore perfectly reasonable real evidence to the contrary. Just looking seriously at the idea of Noah's ark really containing all the life of the earth is just impossible to start with and the salt water would have killed off nearly all the trees and plants not to mention killed their seeds as well. Any why did he leave the dinosaurs out of the ark? Silliness times silliness is stupidity.

[modest]

Originally posted by stereologist

I missed a bunch of posts - been out of town. Did we ever get the math that shows that the volume of the comets is greater than 10 times the volume of the earth?

 

Originally Posted by stereologist

Are you claiming that the asteroids were created by the hydroplate event?

 

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Are you saying the asteriods were ejected from the Earth too?

Yes, and the comets. Total mass: 1.837 * 10²¹ kg (4.92 * 10^-4 Earth mass?) Four percent Lunar mass (1.837 * 10²¹ kg) for the asteroids ^[*] and a negligible ~10^-10 Earth mass (5.9742 * 10¹⁴ kg) for the "known" comets.^[*]

 

...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....

I think it's only 1.2 km. Brown says the subterranean water was on average 3/4 miles deep. ^[*]

Monntanman is correct: that now makes for quite a bit less energy available.

 

Using the method of potential energy from my earlier post—the energy available from dropping a 16 km layer of granite worldwide a distance of 1.2 km is capable of moving 2.88 x 10¹⁷ kg from the earth to the asteroid belt. Since the asteroid belt has at least 10 thousand times as much mass as that—the theory is disproved before taking anything else (e.g. comets, heat, etc.) into account.

 

And, Modest, there are other propulsion mechanisms proposed by the hydroplate theory to consider. See my reply to you below...

 

Also, the water was pressurized to 427 MPa and therefore compressed to about half its normal volume. ^[*]

 

My post did not consider propulsion methods or pressure. I assumed that the method of propulsion was 100% efficient and no energy was lost in any way. Think of a trebuchet with a 1 tonne counterweight that falls 1 meter. You wouldn't be able to use that trebuchet to throw 100 kilograms of water onto the moon. It wouldn't matter if you used the 1 tonne to pressurize the water then release the pressure giving it velocity or if you gave it kinetic energy directly through a lever.

 

Dropping 1 tonne a distance of 1 meter in earth's gravitational field gives you only so much available energy, and moving 100 kilograms up in Earth's field to the moon requires more energy than that.

 

The method of propulsion is immaterial. The available energy is insufficient. To give an idea, and to throw some numbers around, the total energy you can harness from displacing a 16 km layer of granite 1.2 km is:

 

[math]E = \left( \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6355800} - \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6357000} \right) 1.39 \times 10^{22} \ kg = 1.64 \times 10^{26} \ Joules [/math]

 

Compare this to the energy needed to lift the mass of the asteroid belt 10 kilometers off the surface of the earth:

 

[math]E = \left( \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6357000} - \frac{(6.67 \times 10^{-11})(5.97 \times 10^{24})}{6367000} \right) 3 \times 10^{21} \ kg = 2.95 \times 10^{26} \ Joules [/math]

 

So, that is already slightly more energy than we have available. There is not quite enough energy to lift the asteroid belt 10 kilometers off the earth... much less establish it in a solar orbit.

 

I alluded to other propulsion mechanisms earlier. Well Brown lists these as the only [direct] propulsion sources. ^[*]

• tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
• chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
• potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
• nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” (See note)

Another propulsion mechanism specific to asteroids that Brown (mistakenly?) lists elsewhere is the radiometer effect. ^[*]

 

No, no, no. The tides can't put things into orbit. The pressure at 16 km isn't enough to cause fusion. "Chemical energy" makes no sense.

 

The fact that he's trying to obfuscate the energy problem shows that he recognizes there is one making me conclude he is smart enough to know this theory is crap and he is purposefully lying about it. He loves God so much that he is willing to deceive people for Him. Nice.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

The saddest part of this is that this man is using lies and deceit to mislead otherwise honest humans into believing his lies. I have no doubt he is making money doing this. To me what he is doing is criminal, nothing less. What he is doing is every bit as bad as a Ponzi type scheme. He is lying and taking advantage of people to make money, he is taking their money on the basis of lies. Criminal. Sadly, and I really mean this, far too many fundamentalist Christians seem to think that lies are ok as long as it furthers their agenda of religious conversion, influence and control. I lost a friend today because of this bullshit attitude of anything goes as long as it agrees with the end result. I pointed out that one of those scathing reports about Obama and his Muslim sympathies was false. Not only was it false the actual act described, the release of a postage stamp commemorating a Muslim Holiday, was done under the Bush administration. Not by Obama personally as the e-mail claimed. I simply sent a link to this person showing she had been misinformed and suddenly someone I held in high esteem went ballistic saying that if I loved Obama so much i was as bad as him and she didn't ever want to hear from me again. Hurt my feelings, badly, but I mention it because it's a trend by these people. One of my relatives went ballistic on me over another e-mail making false claims about Obama and the heath care plan. No matter what the lie, as long as it agrees with their fundamental world view it's wrong to question it. Fox News (and I saw those two words together with some reluctance) is one of the prime examples of saying what your people want to hear rather than telling the truth. I think this attitude is going to pose ever bigger problems for our society as time goes forward.

[REASON]

The fact that he's [Walter Brown] trying to obfuscate the energy problem shows that he recognizes there is one making me conclude he is smart enough to know this theory is crap and he is purposefully lying about it. He loves God so much that he is willing to deceive people for Him. Nice.

 

I don't believe he is deceiving people for the sake of god. I think he is far too invested in this "theory" (hypothesis actually) to allow it to be so easily undone by the laws of physics. Not only does he have his own reputation to protect, he is also carrying the confidence of all those surrounding him that are so reassured by his work and how it has reinforced their belief in the truth of the holy scriptures. It has become his burden. No matter what evidence is presented to refute his claims, he will continue to obfuscate because he knows his followers are generally ignorant of science allowing him to maintain a hold on their support.....support that comes in many forms. He cannot afford to allow his work to be undone. This is why he avoids open and public debate on the topic.

 

Who is Walter Brown if he is not the man who used science to demonstrate the validity of Genesis?

[maikeru]

I would like to point out the fact that Noah and his ark it's self was a miracle, how did Noah put 59,811 species of vertebrates, 950,000 species of insects on the ark? Not to mention how did 280,000 species of plants survive 300 days being submerged in salt water?

 

The closer you look the sillier the whole idea becomes......

 

As I noted in a post a long, long time ago, I'm partial to two natural "thought experiments" of Hydroplate theory, regarding Noah and the ark:

 

1. The boiled or steamed Noah's ark theory, where the supercritical steam must have instantly cooked the holy man and his family (as well as all the diverse creatures). The resulting stew would have been similar to the sukiyaki, a tasty Japanese dish.

 

2. Or the exploding Noah's ark theory, where he jammed in 1.8+ million species and counting, and Lord only knows how Noah and his wife were able to put up with the odors and lack of space. From the incredible internal forces and pressures generated by cramming in so many creatures of all kin and kind and lack of similar pressure outside the ark, we can only surmise HMS Noah's Ark must have split an Adam's rib and sank beneath the waves with all hands on board.