Hydroplate Theory

[Southtown]

No, his points make sense if you understand what a SCF is and can do. They don't make sense if you rely only on thinking of a SCF in divided and unrealistic gas and liquid phases. This is where you're missing the key ingredient of the whole thing.

"

Beyond the critical point in the liquid-vapor space (towards the top right, above), water is supercritical existing as small but liquid-like hydrogen-bonded clusters dispersed within a gas-like phase [456, 894], where physical properties, such as gas-like or liquid-like behavior, vary in response to changing density.

" --

LSBU

pp.4

The molecules don't collapse back into normal liquid or gas phases. You cannot think of them solely in those terms. This is not what is happening. Not only that, we are not dealing with cold SCW as I mentioned before. The calculations and real model demand high temperature, high pressure SCW. And as mentioned, Ideal Gas Law does break down at low temperatures. We're not dealing with low temperatures as I have said repeatedly. HIGH TEMPERATURES, HIGH PRESSURES. Ideal Gas Law seems to apply here for an approximation or at least a rough idea.

Ionization, electromagnetism, ignored by kinetics.

 

So what happened to all the kinetic energy? Just magically vanished? :)

It was used in ionization.

 

I think you made a slight mistake: 2.0g/ml^-1 isn't a measure of density. g/ml or g/cm³ is a measure of density. 4270 bars = 427,000,000 Pa, according to my calculations (1 bar = 100,000 Pa). At that pressure and a density of 2.0 g/ml, according to your third chart, water's at 800 Kelvin = 526.85 Celsius. The earth is boiling hot at 2 miles down. This is far beyond water boiling point at 100 C. That ain't no cold core.

I think ml^-1 is just cm^-3. As per the fourth graph, the 3d equivalent of the third, uses cm^-3 in the place of, as does the pdf you can't view.

 

Diffuse through solids like a gas, dissolve materials like a liquid. Autoionization increases the ability of the SCW to further dissolve and destroy the rock (by creating hydronium and hydroxide ions, strong acids and bases respectively), driving into its crystals, reacting with its minerals and elements, and heating up the rock while losing the water's heat and pressure and reactivity too. So, the water might not make it out, having not had enough heat and pressure, as Silverslith mentions. :)

Thermal energy is continually added by tidal pumping, making a rupture non-instantaneous, but inevitable.

 

Ummm...hydroplate theory...

 

There is nothing in it so far offered that I have seen that furthers geologic understanding...

Are you saying a thread should actually serve to progress as a whole the field it discusses? That's a pretty tall order! I just wanna talk physics.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Ummm...hydroplate theory...

 

There is nothing in it so far offered that I have seen that furthers geologic understanding...

Are you saying a thread should actually serve to progress as a whole the field it discusses? That's a pretty tall order! I just wanna talk physics.

 

Not exactly my choice of words, as the word 'a' I boldened may refer to threads other than this one. I have a keen interest in threads that add to geologic knowledge, yes. If you want to fill a tall order then stand on the shoulders of giants, not pipsqueaks. The language of physics is the calculus and it's rather a scarce commodity in this thread. Well, back to my shell. :hyper:

[silverslith]

brief rundown of plate tectonics as it effects New Zealand:

 

The pacific plate coliding with the australian has produced our landmass.

In the north Is the pacific plate subducts under the Oz plate to our east. This has lifted the nth Is and produces extensive volcanism as the water, carbon, and silica returns to the surface. Over 1000 eruptions from near as many throats just within the 50km of my house alone have contributed to building up our landmass over the last million years alone. They are well studied and the different ash layers are very useful in dating the biology of the area.

In the south Island the pacific plate pushes against and slides south along the oz plate raising the southern alps.

To the south of NZ the pacific plate rides up and over the oz plate. The pacific plate is ripped apart from these interactions producing the kermadec trench and undersea basalt volcanos going 2000km northeast from cook strait which is widening by several cm per year driven by the splitting of the pacific plate.

 

Hope this helps.

[maikeru]

"

Beyond the critical point in the liquid-vapor space (towards the top right, above), water is supercritical existing as

small but liquid-like hydrogen-bonded clusters dispersed within a gas-like phase

[456, 894], where physical properties, such as

gas-like

or liquid-like behavior, vary in response to changing density.

" --

LSBU

pp.4

 

By quoting it, you disprove your own point. Gas-like, liquid-like. If you understand what is happening with the particles in supercritical fluid, this makes perfect sense. Not that some molecules are collapsing into one phase or the other. Most of the molecules will be in these H-bonded clusters showing some liquid-like characteristics because of the hydrogen bonding, and most of the clusters will be more widely spaced from each other and vibrating and moving rapidly because of high kinetic energy. Changing density also happens with changes in pressure and temperature. The change of physical properties is in perfect concordance with the rest of the data. Everything you quote points to what Silverslith and I have been saying, not to what you imagine.

 

Not everything that shows H-bonding magically and automatically becomes a liquid. Proteins and nucleic acids can have extensive H-bonding within their molecules and structures or with each other, and *magically*, they don't become liquids.

 

Ionization, electromagnetism, ignored by kinetics.

 

Autionization is an extremely fast process, happening in 150 fs. However, it's over just about as fast as it begins, when the proton dissociated from its hydroxide is passed along through other water molecules through the Grotthuss mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotthuss_mechanism, which isolates the extra H+ and OH- and causes them to combine, annihilating the ions. It's true that rising heat increases autoionization, but I would imagine it also uses little energy respectively since it reaches equilibrium rapidly and products and reactants are immediately restored.

 

It was used in ionization.

 

All of it was used in ionization? Well, that's a mighty tall order then. Rather than SCW, we have supercritical ions frozen stiff.

 

I think ml^-1 is just cm^-3. As per the fourth graph, the 3d equivalent of the third, uses cm^-3 in the place of, as does the pdf you can't view.

 

g*ml^-1 == g/ml == g/cm³. g/ml^-1, which you mentioned before, is used by no one. It's incorrect. I'm really surprised you didn't pick that up.

 

Thermal energy is continually added by tidal pumping, making a rupture non-instantaneous, but inevitable.

 

Following your line of thinking, the thermal energy would be used up by the autoionization of the water. It's continually added and continually lost at an amazing rate. Huzzah!

 

Your reasoning blows itself apart. Take a good, long look at Silverslith's mention of cognitive dissonance:

 

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I'll say it again, but Hydroplate Theory is garbage.

 

edit: Self-spell checker failed. Back to basic English for me.

[maikeru]

Peer review and debate is one thing, and censorship and dogma are all together another thing.

 

Everyone has an opinion, but few have the facts!

 

 

If it's valid, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny and examination from every angle. If it's a fact, doubly so.

 

Everyone has an opinion, but few present the facts! :hyper:

[Southtown]

Everything you quote points to what Silverslith and I have been saying, not to what you imagine.

And that would be that the SCF could not erupt or that it could not be contained?

 

Not everything that shows H-bonding magically and automatically becomes a liquid. Proteins and nucleic acids can have extensive H-bonding within their molecules and structures or with each other, and *magically*, they don't become liquids.

It's not a natural fluid, no, but it is similar. Instead of reducing temperature to increase density, pressure is added. With increasing density, a substance less resembles an ideal gas because of increasing molecular interaction.

 

Autionization is an extremely fast process, happening in 150 fs. However, it's over just about as fast as it begins, when the proton dissociated from its hydroxide is passed along through other water molecules through the Grotthuss mechanism..., which isolates the extra H+ and OH- and causes them to combine, annihilating the ions. It's true that rising heat increases autoionization, but I would imagine it also uses little energy respectively since it reaches equilibrium rapidly and products and reactants are immediately restored.

The thermal energy would not disappear. It would repeatedly cause ionization.

 

All of it was used in ionization? Well, that's a mighty tall order then. Rather than SCW, we have supercritical ions frozen stiff.

I apologize if I misstated. I don't know how much thermal energy would be converted, but not all obviously.

 

g*ml^-1 == g/ml == g/cm³. g/ml^-1, which you mentioned before, is used by no one. It's incorrect. I'm really surprised you didn't pick that up.

Sorry, thanks. Would 2.0 g/cm³ be twice as dense as normal water?

 

Following your line of thinking, the thermal energy would be used up by the autoionization of the water. It's continually added and continually lost at an amazing rate. Huzzah!

I did not mean that it would be completely used up, but continually added and continually lost is right. Thermal energy will bounce back and forth from heat to electromagnetism. The net effect would be increased gradually through tidal pumping.

[TheBigDog]

I am happy that this thread stayed here. I have learned what Hydroplate Theory is, and I continue to learn that. At the same time I have learned a great deal about geology, and there have been discussions that simply would not have happened if this thread had not been kept in Earth Science. The title of the thread does not decree that the theory is solid science, it simply states what is being discussed here.

 

If you don't agree with the theory you don't need to get all bent out of shape about it. Enough people have come and said their peace that the casual reader of the forum would understand that the theory itself has been soundly rebuffed.

 

I am appreciative of Southtown for continuing his end of the debate, and keeping his good humor in the face of the booing he has received. And I am grateful for the many folks who have come and gone form the thread, stopping to lend their knowledge to the discussion and helping me learn so much more about geological formations.

 

Hypography is about science and discussion, and this thread has provided plenty of both.

 

Bill

[Southtown]

Thanks, Bill. And thanks to the others, too. I can only discuss this theory scientifically on a science site. And I'm learning a lot. Some lesser scientific sites were not surprizingly less knowledgeable.

[Southtown]

If you don't agree with the theory you don't need to get all bent out of shape about it. Enough people have come and said their peace that the casual reader of the forum would understand that the theory itself has been soundly rebuffed.

Would you please clarify for me what you mean by 'soundly rebuffed?' Maikeru was only saying that the ideal gas law represents supercritical fluids. However, it breaks down under density because of increased molecular interaction as evidenced by the 'liquid-like H-bonding.' (How that differs from my statement in post #49 I'm not sure.) Silverslith's last relevant point was that the SCF could not erupt for lack of thermal energy. He also is wrong because energy would be added indefinitely by the tidal pumping of the moon's gravity. Motion in the rock would generate heat. That last fact, on top of unearthing Silverslith's statement, makes my argument with Maikeru irrelevant to the discussion as the eruption is only a matter of time.

[maikeru]

And that would be that the SCF could not erupt or that it could not be contained?

 

This depends on initial starting pressure and heat, but most evidence and calculations point to SCF that could not be contained as SCF. We don't have a perfect SCF. We don't have a perfect container. You're imagining a closed container where the water does not interact with the rock. Unless you'd like to imagine that SCW does explode out of the crust, and steams, dissolves, and liquidates Noah where he floats and incinerates everything on earth.

 

It's not a natural fluid, no, but it is similar. Instead of reducing temperature to increase density, pressure is added. With increasing density, a substance less resembles an ideal gas because of increasing molecular interaction.

 

I thought we already covered this.

 

The thermal energy would not disappear. It would repeatedly cause ionization.

 

Which is then fairly quickly undone. If most of the water was ionized, H-bonding would fail, and it'd become SC ions, increasing pressure and also causing the ions to react with rock chemically, destroying the system. Regardless, SCW will react and infiltrate the rock. Some small part will be due to ions. The rest to SCW, hydrating, dissolving, and chemically reacting with everything that's available, so long as conditions hold up...which they won't. The system will move toward great entropy and the heat will be lost, as per thermodynamic law.

 

Sorry, thanks. Would 2.0 g/cm³ be twice as dense as normal water?

 

Yes.

 

I did not mean that it would be completely used up, but continually added and continually lost is right. Thermal energy will bounce back and forth from heat to electromagnetism. The net effect would be increased gradually through tidal pumping.

 

Just forget everything I mentioned above and forget the Laws of Thermodynamics, too. It'll make life easier. :shrug:

[silverslith]

Southtown, please try and find some figures on the density of rocks at 60000psi. you will likely find they compress more than water. If you want to keep insisting that ionisation causes more pressure then consult and calculate on the temprature required for H or O2 or H+ or O2- to produce the pressure required to counteract the 60000psi of gravity and while you are at it also look up the tensile strength of granite and calculate how much more temperature would be required to overcome that. Only then may you start to postulate this as a possible scenario.

You will still be arguing against all the evidence collected by the sciences of geology and evolutionary biology, not to mention astrophysics and cosmology. I'm Impressed by Maikeru's tolerance with you but not at all by your ability to measure facts against your ideas.:)

Some research into thermodynamics may impress on you that the weak bonds between molecules or ions are of little significance compared to their kinetic energy at temperatures required for your model to float.

I was certainly not saying that your scenario could not erupt because of lack of energy. I was saying that far less energy than required for it to erupt in the fashion you are suggesting would have vapourised the rock.:shrug:

[Southtown]

You're imagining a closed container where the water does not interact with the rock. Unless you'd like to imagine that SCW does explode out of the crust, and steams, dissolves, and liquidates Noah where he floats and incinerates everything on earth.

I've posted elsewhere concerning those things, but you don't seem to realize it.

 

Post #25 - Refuting Glenn R. Morton

Post #27 - The poaching of the N-word

Post #37 - Mechanism of sediment diversity

 

Which is then fairly quickly undone. If most of the water was ionized, H-bonding would fail, and it'd become SC ions, increasing pressure and also causing the ions to react with rock chemically, destroying the system. Regardless, SCW will react and infiltrate the rock. Some small part will be due to ions. The rest to SCW, hydrating, dissolving, and chemically reacting with everything that's available, so long as conditions hold up...which they won't.

The SCF will be saturated with dissolved rock, yes. But water molecules that make it into the rock are not going to behave like the main body as you assert. The more water molecules that infiltrate the rock, the harder it will be for more molecules to do the same. But the density of the rock should effectively prevent hydration, however. Also the tidal effect on the SCW will ease pressure slightly at high tide, causing cyclic precipitation of rock from the top down.

 

The system will move toward great entropy and the heat will be lost, as per thermodynamic law.

Where will the heat go? And how fast will it get there? New energy is being introduced by the moon, remember?

 

Just forget everything I mentioned above and forget the Laws of Thermodynamics, too. It'll make life easier. ;)

You're the one saying that heat (manifest as ionization or not) is lost forever. I appreciate your input, but you're not qualifying your assertions.

 

If you want to keep insisting that ionisation causes more pressure then consult and calculate on the temprature required for H or O2 or H+ or O2- to produce the pressure required to counteract the 60000psi of gravity and while you are at it also look up the tensile strength of granite and calculate how much more temperature would be required to overcome that.

I'm only saying that I can't accept an argument that invokes the ideal gas law because it doesn't represent dense particles, or ionization, or chemical interaction, or the earth's electromagnetic field, etc.

 

Ideal Gas Law

 

I was certainly not saying that your scenario could not erupt because of lack of energy. I was saying that far less energy than required for it to erupt in the fashion you are suggesting would have vapourised the rock.:)

It didn't erupt in the way you are thinking. Increasing heat (in the water and rock) caused expansion and ultimately tensional failure at the surface, which then tore downward.

[silverslith]

Please don't see this as a straw to grasp at southtown, but if you want to understand anything about the chemistry and physics of great heat and pressure. It is a very interesting and relatively new field. We are talking temps over 5000K and high pressures deep in the mantle, but the heat actually forces the electrons much further out from the nucleus and into orbital probability distributions that you'd expect the outer electrons in much heavier elements to be in. The chemistry becomes completely different eg potassium behaves like iron etc.

While the temps are simular to what you require to overcome gravity and tensile strength (note your scenario could only work if God suddenly made it that way just prior to its explosion) the pressure of 60000psi is not enough to stop the electrons being fully ionised from the atoms leaving a thick plasma of independantly moving nuclei and electrons. This would penetrate solid matter like rock very well indeed, hence no possibility it could develop through increasing heat from lunar pumping.

The most accepted theory at present is that the radioactive potassium bonding to the iron in the inner core due to the high temp/ high pressure chemistry is responsible for the heat production of earths core. Another theory is that the core is a fission breeder reactor and the isotopic ratio of helium in deep volcanic sources like Hawaii supports this.

Tidal pumping alone would have seen the earth a cold solid rock billions of years ago, not heated it up at all.

[Southtown]

Please don't see this as a straw to grasp at southtown, but if you want to understand anything about the chemistry and physics of great heat and pressure. It is a very interesting and relatively new field. We are talking temps over 5000K and high pressures deep in the mantle, but the heat actually forces the electrons much further out from the nucleus and into orbital probability distributions that you'd expect the outer electrons in much heavier elements to be in. The chemistry becomes completely different eg potassium behaves like iron etc.

I am researching all your input as fast as I can. Thanks for the tips. That's why this thread is here.

 

While the temps are simular to what you require to overcome gravity and tensile strength (note your scenario could only work if God suddenly made it that way just prior to its explosion) the pressure of 60000psi is not enough to stop the electrons being fully ionised from the atoms leaving a thick plasma of independantly moving nuclei and electrons. This would penetrate solid matter like rock very well indeed, hence no possibility it could develop through increasing heat from lunar pumping.

Very interesting. As I told Maikeru, though, it would seem that the more particles of water saturate the rock immediately above, the harder it would be for more water to do the same.

 

The most accepted theory at present is that the radioactive potassium bonding to the iron in the inner core due to the high temp/ high pressure chemistry is responsible for the heat production of earths core. Another theory is that the core is a fission breeder reactor and the isotopic ratio of helium in deep volcanic sources like Hawaii supports this.

Tidal pumping alone would have seen the earth a cold solid rock billions of years ago, not heated it up at all.

A different mechanism melted the core beneath the oceanic basalt, upon which the continents are said to rest. I'm going to cover that next.

[Southtown]

I'm deviating from my planned sequence, but there have been new developments. I'm going to cover more of the rupture next instead of discussing the core. I will post more later, but for now I just wanted to time stamp a prediction. Note, this is my prediction not Brown's. If he has predicted the same thing, I'm not aware of it. If I'm right then I will pass the credit his way because his theory led me here, but if I'm wrong it's on me.

 

Mars is not volcanically active nor has it ever been. I think Olympus Mons is a captured asteroid which spiralled slowly inward like a moon. The asteroid could have hit first at the Valles Marineris at an extreme angle, carving the gigantic feature in minutes. There's an odd-shaped indentation mid-way through the valley, suggesting the asteroid bounced slightly off the surface.

 

Obviously, the asteroid would break up and the pieces would come back down in different places. And Olympus Mons I think would be by far the biggest fragment. The water that this and the other fragments contained melted/vaporized on impact and shortly afterward flowing out and leaving behind traces of flowing water, an oxidized landscape and a small atmosphere. Olympus Mons would then deflate after losing it's water, leaving the so-called calderas on top.

 

Food for thought.

 

Thanks for your time.

[Southtown]

No retort? I'm surprised.

[Southtown]

By the way this implies "earth-like" organisms and only "earth-like" organisms be discovered on mars, "earth-like" as in from earth, ranging from bacteria to dinosaur fossils.