Hydroplate Theory

[Eclogite]

Perhaps you can give me an example situation that contradicts hydroplate and supports tectonics.

I referenced this in my post above, but only in a very general way. Let me expand upon it.

We can and have examined the character of sediments being deposited today. We have studied these in a vast range of environments: river valleys, deltas, beaches, deserts, lakes, continental slopes, etc.

In each case these environments have a combination of rock characteristics that is peculiar to that environment. This includes features such as grain size, grain shape, sorting, cementation, bedding form, etc.

When we examine rocks in the field we find these sames suites of rock characteristics. Moreover we find them in the expected associations.

I can conceive of no way in which this rich tapestry of environmental types clearly recorded in the rock record could be produced by the mechanism of the hydroplate theory. I await to hear your explanation for this - in my view this alone renders the theory untenable.

[Southtown]

Be cautious of foundations laid in sand. I commend your attempts Southtown, but would be annoyed if layers were added when the first was proven inaccurate. I personally lack the training to do this, so look forward to the refutations given by others.

Ditto, my friend.

 

We can and have examined the character of sediments being deposited today. We have studied these in a vast range of environments: river valleys, deltas, beaches, deserts, lakes, continental slopes, etc.

In each case these environments have a combination of rock characteristics that is peculiar to that environment. This includes features such as grain size, grain shape, sorting, cementation, bedding form, etc.

When we examine rocks in the field we find these sames suites of rock characteristics. Moreover we find them in the expected associations.

I don't understand your objection. How is it that these observations conflict with the hydroplate?

 

I can conceive of no way in which this rich tapestry of environmental types clearly recorded in the rock record could be produced by the mechanism of the hydroplate theory. I await to hear your explanation for this - in my view this alone renders the theory untenable.

I will be touching on those general subjects in the essay after next because there are certain dynamics to be considered first. Many gigantic forces are obviously at play in this theory, and none can be adequately described without also considering others.

 

Next, I have to describe the general effect of such mass redistribution on (and within) the planet, relevant to observed magmatic systems. I will address fossilization and sedimentation after that simply because that is the order in which the theory says these things occurred.

[HydrogenBond]

For the sake of discussion let us assume the theory is true. How does the theory explain the original single supercontinent? What it would require is the opposite side of the earth generating all the waves so they crash in one place. I suppose a giant asteriod might fit the bill.

 

Another consideration is connected to hydrothermal. The temperatures and pressure within and below the crust change the properties of water into a hydrothermal state, where crust material begins to dissolve at ever increasing rates, i.e, beginning at the critical point of water. Hydrothermal waves under the crust would be a very corrosive medium that would thin the crust. This could be benficial in that when critical thinness occurs there is upheaval due to wave pressure.

[ughaibu]

Is this the theory that would've resulted in Noah being steamed?

[Southtown]

For the sake of discussion let us assume the theory is true. How does the theory explain the original single supercontinent? What it would require is the opposite side of the earth generating all the waves so they crash in one place. I suppose a giant asteriod might fit the bill.

 

Another consideration is connected to hydrothermal. The temperatures and pressure within and below the crust change the properties of water into a hydrothermal state, where crust material begins to dissolve at ever increasing rates, i.e, beginning at the critical point of water. Hydrothermal waves under the crust would be a very corrosive medium that would thin the crust. This could be benficial in that when critical thinness occurs there is upheaval due to wave pressure.

 

I get the feeling you're talking about Pangaea. Are you detailing how it could be lifted by water? In case you're referring to Pangaea, the super-continent that the hydroplate theory envisions encircled the entire globe, encapsulating approximately half of the water on the earth's surface today and containing about twice the mineral content.

 

The subterranean water was sealed under about 10 miles of granite crust and underlyed by oceanic basalt. The remnants of this "super-continent" are our continents which are bordered by the continental shelves. After the rupture, they supposedly contracted, buckled, and thickened under their own weight, pushing down on the basalt beneath and pushing up the mid-oceanic ridges.

[maikeru]

Is this the theory that would've resulted in Noah being steamed?

 

Yes, he and all the animals on the ark...just theoretically speaking, of course.

[ughaibu]

Quite funny I guess, if one can handle the shock of accepting that there are people who believe the story of Noah: Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

[Southtown]

Is this the theory that would've resulted in Noah being steamed?

Good question. Glenn Morton did in fact write a rebuttal to Walt Brown's theory which attempts to prove that all life on earth would have been poached by the escaping waters. However, Morton doesn't adequately represent Brown's initial assumption.

 

Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory (By Glenn R. Morton)

 

1) The upper granite was not completely suspended by the subterranean water. Variations in the thickness or density of the upper granite crust displaced the water, allowing the thicker portions to sink into the lower basalt and the thinner to rise. The surface water then sank into the granite depressions and exposing the thinner, uplifted portions of granite.

 

The Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumption

 

2) The subterranean water was supercritical fluid.

 

http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1987/pdf/5901x0025.pdf

"

Most hot liquids cool primarily by evaporation from their surfaces. SCW

[supercritical water]

consists of microscopic liquidlike clusters dispersed within water vapor. The rate those hot clusters and most hot objects cool off depends on their total surface area. The smaller a particle, the larger its surface area is relative to its volume, so more of its heat can be quickly transferred to its surroundings. The liquid in SCW has an area-to-volume ratio that is a trillion times greater (10^12) than that of water that might have covered the earth’s surface. Consequently, the liquid in SCW cools almost instantaneously if its pressure drops. This is because the myriad of liquid clusters, each surrounded by vapor, can simultaneously evaporate. A typical SCW cluster at 300 bars and 716°F (380°C) consists of 5–10 molecules with a volume of only 27–33 cubic angstroms. These liquidlike clusters break up and reform continuously.

" --

Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumption, sidenote: 2, pp. 6

[ughaibu]

And where do you think the heat would go?

[Southtown]

The eruption would be super-accelerated by the 10k-fold expansion of the supercritical water through and past the earth's atmosphere where it, and any eroded debris, would cool in space.

 

Supercritical Fluids at PNNL

 

Within that near-absolute-zero environment the heat was created condensing the newly expanded water vapor back into liquid form. The initial ejecta was the most accelerated and achieved escape velocity, but some frozen ejecta rained back to earth forming the polar caps and generally cooling the later, less-accelerated phase of the eruption.

 

I intend to expand on all this with evidence, of course, and to illustrate how this model can solve real-world (and extra-world) mysteries.

[ughaibu]

1) The supercritical liquid loses it's heat almost instantly

2) The supercritical liquid loses it's heat above the Earth's atmosphere

3) All this supercritical liquid moves almost instantly from underground to outer space

4) Where's the flood water?

5) Where's the atmosphere? it too has been blown into space

Have fun with this, I'm happy enough talking rubbish but this isn't even interesting, as it's only justification appears to be an attempt to add respectability to the belief in the story of Noah, it is meta-silliness, and I've had enough.

[Southtown]

1) The supercritical liquid loses it's heat almost instantly

2) The supercritical liquid loses it's heat above the Earth's atmosphere

3) All this supercritical liquid moves almost instantly from underground to outer space

4) Where's the flood water?

5) Where's the atmosphere? it too has been blown into space

Have fun with this, I'm happy enough talking rubbish but this isn't even interesting, as it's only justification appears to be an attempt to add respectability to the belief in the story of Noah, it is meta-silliness, and I've had enough.

I appreciate your contributions. They have proved very helpful in my examination of this theory. In case you misunderstand anything, I've tried to clarify some things below.

 

1) The SCW uses its heat to decompress back into a gas (as it's ejected super-sonically).

 

2) The gas creates heat condensing back into a liquid (above the earth's atmosphere).

 

3) Yep, li'l pressure involved.

 

4) Haven't got to that yet. Ejecta that didn't achieve escape velocity fell back to earth absolutely frozen, where it cooled the earth as the eruption slowed. The continental crust deflated so to speak (skipping ahead a little) and was submerged more from sinking than from flooding. The raining, frozen debris mixed with the latter erupting, hotter waters serving to moderate the overall temperature of the globe.

 

EDIT: And the flood water became our oceans as the continental crusts contracted, thickened and buckled.

 

5) No, gravity didn't all of a sudden disappear. The atmosphere was basically parted. And what atmosphere was lifted with the ejecta, soon became a part of it, and should be evident in meteor/asteroid/comet samples, as well as some soon-to-be-posted geographical features.

[ughaibu]

Naturally, Noah is quite unperturbed by the pressures involved.

[Eclogite]

In an earlier post I observed that:

We have examined the character of sediments being deposited today...... in a vast range of environments......In each case these environments have a combination of rock characteristics that is peculiar to that environment. ......When we examine rocks in the field we find these sames suites of rock characteristics........in the expected associations.

You responded:

I don't understand your objection. How is it that these observations conflict with the hydroplate?

 

I'll expand my objection for a second time. Here goes.

 

Sedimentary rocks possess various properties that geologists have found to be related to their origin. These include small scale features that describe the geometry of the grains and their inter-relationships, and large scale features such as bedding planes. The former are part of the rock texture, the latter is part of the rock structure. In addition, the composition of the rock (chemical and mineralogical) and it physcial attributes can tell us a great deal about its genesis.

 

Under the category of texture we would consider size, shape and roundness of grains; grain surface texture; grain orientation; grain size distribution, or sorting, including skew and kurtosis of this distribution; and cementation.

 

The structural category covers the overall size and shape of the sedimentary body; internal structures such as bedding and lamination (current bedding, cross bedding, graded bedding, rhythmic bedding); bedding plane features (ripple marks, mud cracks, swash and rill marks, flute casts, etc.); defomration structures (postdepositional slumps, intraformational conglomerates, etc.); biostromes; bioherms; fossils; and internal chemical structures (corrosion zones, concretions, stylolites, etc).

 

The chemical and mineralogical category should be self evident. Note that all minerals have particular conditions under which they are stable. Mineralogical changes occur after deposition and subsequent burial and continue as thetemperature, pressure and chemical regimes change. This is a process called diagenesis.

 

Under physcial attributes we would find porosity and permeability; packing; cohesiveness; compactibility; etc.

 

When we examine rocks that are being formed today, by observable, measurable processes, we find that in a given environment these rocks have a particular range of the features described above. If they come from another environment these features, singly and in combination ,are different.

 

No exception to this rule has ever been observed. It leads us on to one of the fundamental tenets of geological theory, first espoused by Hutton in the 18th century - "The present is the key to the past."

 

When we look at rocks we believe to be ancient we find there the same suites of features we found in rocks being laid down today. Moreover, we have some measure of how long it takes those rocks to be deposited today. Many of the features of these rocks (e.g. the degreee of rounding, sorting and sphericity imposed on desert sands) cannot be imposed more rapidly simpl;y by pumping more energy into the system. Changes in energy levels represent different environments and therefore different rock properties.

 

In short, current theory tells us exactly how the rocks we see formed. How does the hydroplate theory deliver such a variety of rock types, with such diverse features that exactly match rocks being produced today by observable processes? To maintain that it does would seem to require either a step of monumental genius, or a stunning ability to ignore the facts.

[Southtown]

In short, current theory tells us exactly how the rocks we see formed. How does the hydroplate theory deliver such a variety of rock types, with such diverse features that exactly match rocks being produced today by observable processes?

By observable processes, of course.

 

To maintain that it does would seem to require either a step of monumental genius, or a stunning ability to ignore the facts.

Why thanks. :)

 

Seriously, you merely reiterate textbook dogma. You provide no situations that either support tectonic processes or contradict hydroplate processes. I am almost positive that you mean to imply that current processes are shown to have been active for millions of years, but I will neither build your argument for you nor base a reply on such presumption.

[InfiniteNow]

SouthT,

 

I take your above post to mean that you are unable to explain what is observed using hydroplate theory. Either prove me wrong, or stop.

[ughaibu]

This theory was proposed as an historical account for a myth, this myth involves a flood caused by rain, it doesn't involve the surface of the Earth collapsing. The theory doesn't add up as Biblical apologetics and there is no other reason to conjecture it. If somebody arrived on Earth now, with no knowledge of human culture, and began to consider the geological history, what features would lead them to consider the hydroplate possibility?