Hydroplate Theory

[Thunderbird]

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.

 

I do not mean to be harsh… but reading some of your geological explanations sounds like you learned geophysics by watching road runner cartoons.

[Southtown]

I do not mean to be harsh… but reading some of your geological explanations sounds like you learned geophysics by watching road runner cartoons.

K thanks. Why do you say that?

[Thunderbird]

K thanks. Why do you say that?

 

I remember when I first became interested in geology I was very fascinated and enthusiastic but before I really begin studying seriously I would let my imagination run away with me. Like your doing here.

 

It is imperative that you look at the geologic strata as a book with layers of information going back billions of years, otherwise you will never really experience the true awe inspiring nature of the earth.

 

Give the “Book of the Earth” its due time. And do not try to cram it in another book were it does not belong.

[Southtown]

It is imperative that you look at the geologic strata as a book with layers of information going back billions of years, otherwise you will never really experience the true awe inspiring nature of the earth.

K thanks. Why do you say that? :hihi:

 

No really. You assume I'm unaware of the popular views. I really just wish to discuss why these ideas are inconceivable, as opposed to sitting down and closing my mouth.

[REASON]

I believe an honest acknowledgement would involve an admission that choosing to believe in Hydroplate Theory is really more about wanting to provide legitamacy to certain Biblical teachings (The Great Flood) by attempting to transform myth into reality than it is about wanting to understand a more feasible scientific explanation for the nature of the Earth's crust and surface conditions.

 

An acknowledgement such as this would not only be genuine, but would explain the need to perpetuate a theory that contains obvious flaws and fallacy, and is flatly rejected by the foremost experts in the related fields of study.

[Buffy]

An acknowledgement such as this would not only be genuine, but would explain the need to perpetuate a theory that contains obvious flaws and fallacy, and is flatly rejected by the foremost experts in the related fields of study.

That's true of course, but its not really the point of this thread: its really an exercise in demonstrating the scientific method by explicitly outlining the flaws and fallacies in the theory.

 

One of the best ways to demonstrate to those who have doubts about the scientific method is to take them through the lowest level detail of the facts and compare the competing theories, showing why some theories are not only less plausible, but why they actually are contradicted by evidence.

 

South knows that the conventional wisdom and the experts find hydroplate wanting as a theory, but he wants to discuss "why" that's the case.

 

I would rather see the portrait of a dog that I know, than all the allegorical paintings they can show me in the world, :D

Buffy

[REASON]

That's true of course, but its not really the point of this thread: its really an exercise in demonstrating the scientific method by explicitly outlining the flaws and fallacies in the theory.

 

One of the best ways to demonstrate to those who have doubts about the scientific method is to take them through the lowest level detail of the facts and compare the competing theories, showing why some theories are not only less plausible, but why they actually are contradicted by evidence.

 

Well that's an excellent point and I don't disagree with that whatsoever. I acknowledge that I may have misread the intent of this tread. I will review it more thorougly.

 

 

South knows that the conventional wisdom and the experts find hydroplate wanting as a theory, but he wants to discuss "why" that's the case.

 

Yet through what's been discussed, Southy still believes in this theory as he stated on your Religion vs. Religion thread, and I'm not sure he has acknowledged the motivation for his persistence. Has he not continued to cast Hydroplate Theory as scientifically viable, even as evidence has been presented that refutes it? Again, maybe I have misunderstood the intent here.

[Buffy]

Yet through what's been discussed, Southy still believes in this theory as he stated on your Religion vs. Religion thread, and I'm not sure he has acknowledged the motivation for his persistence. Has he not continued to cast Hydroplate Theory as scientifically viable, even as evidence has been presented that refutes it? Again, maybe I have misunderstood the intent here.

I think he's been clear enough about why he believes it. I think he's pushing the envelope on the amount of contradictory evidence that he's going to require to be convinced that Hydroplate does not "hold water."

 

That might be seen as "typical" of believers of faith derived theories, but he is at least trying.

 

There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries, :cheer:

Buffy

[Southtown]

Has he not continued to cast Hydroplate Theory as scientifically viable, even as evidence has been presented that refutes it?

Two questions. Where have I cast it as viable? And what presented evidence are you referring to specifically? Please forgive me for not following.

[Southtown]

I think he's been clear enough about why he believes it. I think he's pushing the envelope on the amount of contradictory evidence that he's going to require to be convinced that Hydroplate does not "hold water."

Thanks again for the vote of confidence. I don't think my opinion is relevant though, whether it flops this way or that, does it? In regards to the facts that is?

[REASON]

Two questions. Where have I cast it as viable? And what presented evidence are you referring to specifically? Please forgive me for not following.

 

1. Viable as in feasible. You've been debating scientific feasibility from your initial post in that you have presented a hypothysis, and have attempted to support it with evidence.

 

2. In particular, I felt Eclogite's initial arguments relating to sedimentary rock layers substantial enough to refute the Hydroplate, even if you did choose to toss it aside as scientific dogma.

 

To me, this is all beside the point because I don't believe your intent is to establish a more feasible explanation for the nature of the Earth's surface. It is an attempt to provide feasibilty for a biblical story.

 

Where in the Bible does it mention anything resembling a Hydroplate?

[Southtown]

1. Viable as in feasible. You've been debating scientific feasibility from your initial post in that you have presented a hypothysis, and have attempted to support it with evidence.

Is there something wrong with discussing evidence? Are you implying that I misrepresented facts in some way? Can you please elaborate on which evidences are inadequate or inaccurate?

 

2. In particular, I felt Eclogite's initial arguments relating to sedimentary rock layers substantial enough to refute the Hydroplate, even if you did choose to toss it aside as scientific dogma.

This is my formal reply to Eclogite, and it remains unanswered.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/9972-hydroplate-theory-5.html#post169254

 

To me, this is all beside the point because I don't believe your intent is to establish a more feasible explanation for the nature of the Earth's surface. It is an attempt to provide feasibilty for a biblical story.

Your beliefs should be as irrelevant to any discussion of the facts as mine are, correct?

 

Where in the Bible does it mention anything resembling a Hydroplate?

That's not an appropriate discussion for the Earth Sciences forum, but I can pm you.

[REASON]

Is there something wrong with discussing evidence? Are you implying that I misrepresented facts in some way? Can you please elaborate on which evidences are inadequate or inaccurate?

 

No, there is nothing wrong with discussing evidence whatsoever in my opinion. That's what it's all about in science, and precisely what Buffy was pointing out to me. I was explaining what I meant when I stated that you were continuing to cast Hydroplate Theory as "scientifically viable." I was not trying to imply that you are wrong in your attempt to discuss this theory scientifically. I don't feel that way at all. I’m just not sure of your overall intentions or expectations.

 

 

This is my formal reply to Eclogite, and it remains unanswered.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/9972-hydroplate-theory-5.html#post169254

 

I will not speak for Eclogite, but I would not be surprised if he was simply exasperated by the enormity of speculation you presented in your reply, which would have taken more time than he was willing to commit to respond. I don't know for sure though.

 

 

Your beliefs should be as irrelevant to any discussion of the facts as mine are, correct?

 

I believe that is absolutely correct when it comes to science, assuming it is actually facts that are being discussed. Although I also think beliefs based on previous experience can play a part in the interpretation of data. But this is where the problem lies in discussions such as this one, and is the primary point that I was trying to make.

 

Beliefs formed around religious doctrines can become so vital to people that maintaining those beliefs in the face of refuting evidence is of greater value to them. I do not know you well enough to presume that you fall into that category, but it appears that way to me. My former signature, which is a saying of mine, stated, "When what you want to believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice."

 

In my experience, people who have become entrenched in their religious beliefs will continually deny the reality of accepted science if it conflicts with their religious understanding for which they have committed themselves. The more deeply their commitment, the more staunch the denial, particularly when that commitment is geared around literal interpretations of ancient texts. For them, the choice has already been made. The fear appears to be that to reject even a portion of the scripture, is to reject it completely.

 

The solution for some, who may be somewhat conflicted since they have an understanding of the importance of science, is to generate theories that appear scientific, and are intended to provide a bridge between what we observe in reality and what has been stated in scripture. Intelligent Design is such an example, and I believe Hydroplate Theory is another. But the intent of these concepts is not to understand the reality of nature, but to provide a seemingly realistic explanation for religious stories that have been characterized as myth.

 

With this as the intent, the debate becomes futile because the claimant is actually unwilling to alter their understanding based on their previous religious commitment. This is why many in the religious community continually reject scientific theories such as evolution, which are heavily supported by evidence. The religious explanation is what they have chosen instead, for whatever their reason. For those that understand and accept the science, it can become a waste of time to endlessly debate a subject with someone who has no intention of altering their perception, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and its interpretation by scientists in the fields of study. In my opinion, this is why several people, such as Turtle, refused to enter this discussion in the first place.

 

There is plenty of logical evidence and information to refute the Great Flood and Noah's Ark as described in the ancient biblical scriptures. For example, the website TalkOrigins does a fairly thorough job of addressing these and many other similar “Young Earth” topics from a scientific perspective. If one is able, scientifically, to come to the realization of the absurdity that the Noah’s Ark story was an actual historical event, than Hydroplate Theory becomes unnecessary, and is irrelevant. But there has to be a willingness to consider, understand, and extend credibility to the information and how it is supported, or else it is a waste of time.

 

But if the intent of this thread is to demonstrate the scientific method and the impact of peer review on a theory, as Buffy suggested, than please excuse my interruption.

[Eclogite]

This is my formal reply to Eclogite, and it remains unanswered.

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/9972-hydroplate-theory-5.html#post169254

Frankly, Southtown, I gave up. My own experience and knowledge leave me in absolutely no doubt that hydroplate theory is one of the largest masses of undigested waste on the planet. I really don't wish you to take that unkindly, though it may sound brutal. I am simply being honest about my feelings.

From that perspective, to spend time arguing against the theory would be, for me, a complete waste. However, you have been good enough to post a riposte to some of my own arguments (I take it that is what is in the link - I have not looked yet) so I shall enter the fray again, at least for one more session.

 

I have just quickly scanned your post. I know as a moderator I am meant to be moderate(:rolleyes:), but really Southtown, what you have written could only have been written by someone who has not looked at rocks in the field, studied sediments in the making, examined textures in thin section, and properly contemplated the truly wonderful complexity of the lithosphere. I barely know where to begin with such a blind misinterpretation of reality, but I shall give it a go.

[Eclogite]

I found that statement incredibly audacious. Unexplained or debated formations are not that hard to dig up. Here are some that relate specifically to this post.

Please. You are being ridiculous.

Of course there are individual instances of formations whose origin is in question. Of course there are still debates over the precise details of some particular of diagenesis. But I assure you that there is no disagreement amongst geologists as to the association between specific environments and specific sediment characteristics. These are so well documented in any of the standard textbooks on stratigraphy and sedimentation, and backed up by thousands of peer reviewed research papers, that I can only presume you have cherry picked your way through the literature to find minor, localised exceptions.

 

Let us take a closer look at those exceptions. First this one:

Diamonds

1. This has nothing to do with sedimentation, but everything to do with global tectonics, isostasy and carbon phase diagrams.

2. It does not raise any questions marks concerning the depositional environment of sediments.

3. It does raise some serious questions for hydroplate theory, so thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Strike one!

 

Dolomite

1. The so called Dolomite Problem was already ancient and solved when I attended University in the late Miocene.

2. (The 'problem' was the common occurence of dolomites at depth and their apparent absence at surface. The argument was over the extent and character of the dolomitisation process. The process has been elucidated and many instances of surface dolomite formation have been identified.)

Strike two!

 

Snowball Earth

1. This article in now way questions the relationship between sediments and their environment of deposition.

2. This article uses the relationship between sediments and their environment of deposition to challenge the notion that the Earth was at one point completely frozen over.

3. This article affirms what I have been saying from the outset: the environment of deposition is discernible in the character of the sediment.

Strike three!

 

Mantle plumes

1. This article has absolutely nothing to do with sediments.

2. Therefore this article is a complete red herring.

Strike four! . . . . . How many chances do you get?

 

Quartz cementation

1. finally something with a peripheral relevance. Please note that this is mainly concerned with diagenesis, not sedimentation, therefore...

2. Explain in what way details of the sedimentation process interfere with proper identification of the environment of deposition.

 

Strike on hold till you respond.

 

Scablands

1. Another article that supports the notion that we can deduce the environment of deposition (or in this case the environment of erosion)from the evidence of the sediments (or in this case the erosive features.

2. This article supports my basic contention.

Strike five.

 

Southtown, two general points:

1. You need to learn some basic geology so you can understand what you are reading. It will stop you from looking so foolish in offering items like these, several of which support my position and undermine yours.

2. Try reading some proper research papers and not popular accounts with their marketing hype of 'great mysteries' and the like.

[Southtown]

No, there is nothing wrong with discussing evidence whatsoever in my opinion. That's what it's all about in science, and precisely what Buffy was pointing out to me. I was explaining what I meant when I stated that you were continuing to cast Hydroplate Theory as "scientifically viable." I was not trying to imply that you are wrong in your attempt to discuss this theory scientifically. I don't feel that way at all. I’m just not sure of your overall intentions or expectations.

How exactly do you cast it as unviable?

 

I will not speak for Eclogite, but I would not be surprised if he was simply exasperated by the enormity of speculation you presented in your reply, which would have taken more time than he was willing to commit to respond. I don't know for sure though.

Thanks for the 'enormity' of repose your behalf, by the way.

 

I believe that is absolutely correct when it comes to science, assuming it is actually facts that are being discussed.

Do you care to dispute the facts presented or do you just 'assume' that they are infactual?

 

Although I also think beliefs based on previous experience can play a part in the interpretation of data. But this is where the problem lies in discussions such as this one, and is the primary point that I was trying to make.

 

Beliefs formed around religious doctrines can become so vital to people that maintaining those beliefs in the face of refuting evidence is of greater value to them. I do not know you well enough to presume that you fall into that category, but it appears that way to me. My former signature, which is a saying of mine, stated, "When what you want to believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice."

 

In my experience, people who have become entrenched in their religious beliefs will continually deny the reality of accepted science if it conflicts with their religious understanding for which they have committed themselves. The more deeply their commitment, the more staunch the denial, particularly when that commitment is geared around literal interpretations of ancient texts. For them, the choice has already been made. The fear appears to be that to reject even a portion of the scripture, is to reject it completely.

 

The solution for some, who may be somewhat conflicted since they have an understanding of the importance of science, is to generate theories that appear scientific, and are intended to provide a bridge between what we observe in reality and what has been stated in scripture. Intelligent Design is such an example,

*snore* sorry what? (see previous reply)

 

and I believe Hydroplate Theory is another.

WHY do you believe that?

 

But the intent of these concepts is not to understand the reality of nature, but to provide a seemingly realistic explanation for religious stories that have been characterized as myth.

 

With this as the intent, the debate becomes futile because the claimant is actually unwilling to alter their understanding based on their previous religious commitment.

And that 'previous religious commitment' being what? Please respond...

 

This is why many in the religious community continually reject scientific theories such as evolution, which are heavily supported by evidence. The religious explanation is what they have chosen instead, for whatever their reason. For those that understand and accept the science, it can become a waste of time to endlessly debate a subject with someone who has no intention of altering their perception,

Excuse me? Are you referring to me? Can you support the claim that I have no intention of altering my perception? 'Cuz I can refute it!

 

...even in the face of overwhelming evidence and its interpretation by scientists in the fields of study. In my opinion, this is why several people, such as Turtle, refused to enter this discussion in the first place.

Props to the Tortoise. ברוך צדים Baruch Tsadim! (no **** y'all)

 

There is plenty of logical evidence and information to refute the Great Flood and Noah's Ark as described in the ancient biblical scriptures. For example, the website TalkOrigins does a fairly thorough job of addressing these and many other similar “Young Earth” topics from a scientific perspective.

A link to talkorigins.org? Do you yourself have anything to contribute?

 

If one is able, scientifically, to come to the realization of the absurdity that the Noah’s Ark story was an actual historical event, than Hydroplate Theory becomes unnecessary, and is irrelevant.

WTF?

 

But there has to be a willingness to consider, understand, and extend credibility to the information and how it is supported, or else it is a waste of time.

To what information do you refer, sir?

 

But if the intent of this thread is to demonstrate the scientific method and the impact of peer review on a theory, as Buffy suggested, than please excuse my interruption.

You are forgiven. =P

[Southtown]

But I assure you that there is no disagreement amongst geologists as to the association between specific environments and specific sediment characteristics. These are so well documented in any of the standard textbooks on stratigraphy and sedimentation, and backed up by thousands of peer reviewed research papers, that I can only presume you have cherry picked your way through the literature to find minor, localised exceptions.

Hello again and thank you for your response. I find it interesting, though, that you didn't comment on the mechanisms that I laid out, since you were previously demanding that I provide them. It's as if you just read my links. Also, the above quote is an appeal to the majority and is not an argument. It amounts to 'shut up and get on the bandwagon.'

 

Argumentum ad populum

 

Diamonds

1. This has nothing to do with sedimentation, but everything to do with global tectonics, isostasy and carbon phase diagrams.

2. It does not raise any questions marks concerning the depositional environment of sediments.

3. It does raise some serious questions for hydroplate theory, so thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Strike one!

Point one is clearly false. It doesn't appear that you actually read the diamond article either. Point two is a subjective statement, and point three is a vague and unsupported suggestion.

 

"The Norwegian diamonds break the standard mold because they do not come from volcanic mantle rocks. Instead, they appear in metamorphic rocks that originally formed as

ancient sedimentary deposits

at Earth's surface. ... Although such continental collisions can metamorphose crustal rocks, they are considered far too docile for making diamonds."

Again the hydroplate mechanism provides the necessary pressure and temperature with ease.

 

Dolomite

1. The so called Dolomite Problem was already ancient and solved when I attended University in the late Miocene.

2. (The 'problem' was the common occurence of dolomites at depth and their apparent absence at surface. The argument was over the extent and character of the dolomitisation process. The process has been elucidated and many instances of surface dolomite formation have been identified.)

Strike two!

Yes, and everyone agrees that the larger dolomite deposits were the result of large amounts of oxygen-intolerant, sulfate-consuming bacteria present during calcite production which happens to be under large amounts of water, at warm temperatures, and everyone knows that synthesized dolomite increases in stability with repetitious precipitation. Problem solved, right?

 

Snowball Earth

1. This article in now way questions the relationship between sediments and their environment of deposition.

2. This article uses the relationship between sediments and their environment of deposition to challenge the notion that the Earth was at one point completely frozen over.

3. This article affirms what I have been saying from the outset: the environment of deposition is discernible in the character of the sediment.

Strike three!

I have never said that sediment characteristics are not indicative of the environment in which they were deposited. Where do you get that idea? The snowball earth theory comes from the assumption that glaciers are the only mechanism capable of creating/carrying/depositing large stones into otherwise fine sediment. So therefore the whole earth must have been entirely frozen at some point in the past. Problem solved, right?

 

Mantle plumes

1. This article has absolutely nothing to do with sediments.

2. Therefore this article is a complete red herring.

Strike four! . . . . . How many chances do you get?

Your right about this one. It's relevant to some geologic processes but not really sedimentation, other than the chemistry involved inside volcanoes. Either way, it's not relevant to our discussion.

 

Quartz cementation

1. finally something with a peripheral relevance. Please note that this is mainly concerned with diagenesis, not sedimentation, therefore...

2. Explain in what way details of the sedimentation process interfere with proper identification of the environment of deposition.

 

Strike on hold till you respond.

Quartz veins within cracks of already deposited sediment require large amounts of flowing water or huge temperature fluctuations in water-saturated environments. And as we all know, flowing water erodes sharp edges.

 

Scablands

1. Another article that supports the notion that we can deduce the environment of deposition (or in this case the environment of erosion)from the evidence of the sediments (or in this case the erosive features.

2. This article supports my basic contention.

Strike five.

Again, I don't deny that sediment characteristics are indicative of past events/environments. If that is your only contention, then were are done here.

 

Southtown, two general points:

1. You need to learn some basic geology so you can understand what you are reading. It will stop you from looking so foolish in offering items like these, several of which support my position and undermine yours.

Go strike yourself.

 

2. Try reading some proper research papers and not popular accounts with their marketing hype of 'great mysteries' and the like.

I assure you, I am sincere. The problem lies in funding my own research. I enrolled in Oregon State as a geo major last year. Financial aid would cover the books, but their bookstore would not charge my university account. So when the time came to buy books, I needed cash. Unfortunately, my paychecks go to things like groceries, child care, gas, etc., things which my family of four can't go without. So I withdrew for now. Maybe in a few more years. If you could point me to some articles of interest, I will definitely consider paying a website for individual PDFs, but paying for a personal subscription just to browse is entirely out of the question.