Hydroplate Theory

[enorbet2]

It might be fitting and useful to allow this thread to reside here in "Earth Science" *if* accompanied by a disclaimer, preferably from administration, pointing out the actual definition of the term "theory" as separate from "speculation", to illustrate the shortcut methods used by Creationists to attempt to push any old fever dream into legitimacy by mere ignorance, audacity and force of will. Frosting on the cake would be to explain or link to a defintion of The Scientific Method and implore posters to use proper terminology consistently.

Lemonade from lemons.

 

Because theories must be consistent with facts it could be pointed out that the laws of physics preclude a 10 mile thick slab of floating granite as mathematically impossible. It might further be enlightening to note that the dear bible thumping mechanical engineer allows for mountains of up to 6000 feet in altitude to keep consistent with the Bible at the expense of the Physics that shows "mountains" mere feet in height would collapse the system. Priorities, Sir!

 

Additionally it has value to demonstrate that "Hydroplate Mumbo-Jumbo" isa cynical construct just as the Dover trial revealed the evolution of the Creationists' centerpiece propaganda textbook, "Of Pandas and People" where it was dicovered and entered into the court transcripts that despite the author's and publishers' adamant assertions that Intelligent Design was a new concept and not just a new name for an old concept (one already discredited by Science and in courts of law) the words "intelligent design" were so lliterally erased and typed over with "Creation" and they didn't even get that right since in some cases remnant letters from "creation" still appeared mixed in with "intelligent design". Crintelligent! Such sloppiness is possibly inherent to people who either find themselves confused or too intellectually lazy to put in the work to be precise. This condition is likely influenced by failures in our educational system which falls short in teaching our children the empowering joy of systematic problem solving and the confidence building effect inherent in applied reason. Whatever the cause the inability to flourish from constructive criticism is at the heart of dogma and it's inherent fatal flaw.

 

Finally it could be important to recognize that fundamentalist religious leaders are in such a state of desire to get scientific legitimacy bestowed on what is supposed to be simple Faith, that extremely large sums of money can be made available to anyone calling themselves a scientist who will back up or appear to back up some cherished belief. Presently, and tragically for religion, the most cherished of beliefs is that humans were made instantaneously fro whole cloth as opposed to that most hated of theories, "natural selection" or evolution. If one comes up with a competing theory one is guaranteed riches for the rest of one's life from that desperate community. While this may be powerful motivation to many scientists, poor and tired from the ridiculous lack of funding for at least a decade, even the least scientific in the community must be aware that, even given the required lack of principles or an affinity for supernatural deus es machina, the Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful of theories in existence. That Darwin published150 years ago and given that the wildest imagination of only 75 years ago could scarcely have conjured the elegantly simple and incredibly powerful engine of DNA, it is a supreme accomplishment that not only did DNA NOT contradict Natural Selection ir bore out Evolution in ways unimagineable before. DNA was and is a coup for Evolution, one of it's greatest proofs and supporters. Fight that Champion only at extreme risk. Oddly enough it does happen though but then there still exists The Flat Earth Society and some primitive cultures still pound nails into the ground to prevent earthquakes to a similar degree of success.

[Southtown]

It might be fitting and useful to allow this thread to reside here in "Earth Science" *if* accompanied by a disclaimer, preferably from administration, pointing out the actual definition of the term "theory" as separate from "speculation", to illustrate the shortcut methods used by Creationists to attempt to push any old fever dream into legitimacy by mere ignorance, audacity and force of will. Frosting on the cake would be to explain or link to a defintion of The Scientific Method and implore posters to use proper terminology consistently.

Lemonade from lemons.

Hello, and welcome to Hypography. Thank you for posting, and thank you for seeing value in discussing such a topic scientifically.

 

Because theories must be consistent with facts it could be pointed out that the laws of physics preclude a 10 mile thick slab of floating granite as mathematically impossible. It might further be enlightening to note that the dear bible thumping mechanical engineer allows for mountains of up to 6000 feet in altitude to keep consistent with the Bible at the expense of the Physics that shows "mountains" mere feet in height would collapse the system. Priorities, Sir!

First, Brown does not describe a floating granite layer. Second, Brown does not describe a uniform thickness. Hence, the granite layer would rest on the basalt beneath while the subterranean water would be pushed underneath thinner granite.

 

Additionally it has value to demonstrate that "Hydroplate Mumbo-Jumbo" isa cynical construct just as the...

Again, thanks for seeing value in this discussion, but I'm afraid the rest of your post is off topic.

[enorbet2]

OK More succinctly. My response is not off topic since Hydroplate nonsense (it doesn't even begin to qualify as a theory in scientific terms) is widely championed by (and I suspect for) fundamentalist christians. It is in fact just more ridiculous attempt at a wedge issue that is doomed to failure because it's proponents don't have a clue about evidence or peer review. Htdroplates most fundamental part is not observed phenomonon but rather based on the Bible's assumed assertion that there was a global flood. While logic can argue nonsense just as well as concrete subjects, the difference lies in whether the premise is an assumption taken from out of the blue or from actual observation. I see not a single important foundational idea based in actual observed phenomena let alone any realized predictions. Until there is some evidence, this is just a pipe dream.

[HydrogenBond]

Years ago, I did research growing gemstones using hydrothermal techniques. One of the basic techniques uses a thermal gradient. The set-up will place your raw material at the heated bottom of the hydrothermal container, and your seed crystal at the top. The minerals are more soluble in hydrothermal water at the higher bottom temperature. The water full of dissolve mineral will flow upward, following the thermal convection and deposit on the seed. The lighter deplete water will flow down. This is basic crystal growing 1.0.

 

If you look at this technique in light of a geothermal gradient, supercritical water can dissolve its way downward and transport mineral upward toward the cooler part of the gradient. This active process is not as simple as density differences, but occurs due to chemical affects.

 

As a scenario, say the earth formed from asteroids bringing water. Some of the water will become embedded under the surface, as the asteroids plunge through the surface of the earth. This water would hydrothermally follow the thermal gradient downward. Eventually the earth cools and thermal changes, lowering the solubility of minerals in the water at all depths, with the water and mineral phases separating.

 

Conceivably, one could have vapor water above the hot crust in a higher pressure atmosphere, i.e., mist, and hydrothermal water below the crust, collecting in pools, with the pools concentrating in soluble minerals, due to lower soluble things like silicates phase separating. All we need is to do is rupture the crust. The subterranean water is higher boiling and heavier than the pure atmospheric water and under a lot of pressure. The result is additional water for the oceans.

 

One could set up a hydrothermal experiment to show how water can dissolve downward through denser substances, using crystal growing 1.0. We could lower the thermal to cause the water to redepositing dissolved minerals and phase separate. If we also add sodium chloride and show they remain in the water and increase the boiling point. If we open the "bomb", or crack the top, we can can get the water to shoot out the top. The only thing left to do is show examples of that indicate water coming out of the earth.

[Moontanman]

HB, I suggest you read up on hydroplate theory, what you are proposing has nothing what so ever to do with the idea of hydroplate theory. Hydroplate theory isn't even good enough to be wrong, it has absolutely no basis in reality. It defies the laws of physics not to mention every last bit of data we have on what goes on under the earths crust. Hydroplate theory is nothing but a sad attempt to show that Noah's ark was real, If you want to believe the bible is totally factual feel free to do so but if you want science to confirm it be prepared to be debunked over and over and over.

[tedrick79]

 

Why are all the continents headed towards the trenches in the Pacific Ocean?

 

 

 

 

Why are they moving so slow? 2cm a year? You must be joking? Coastal Erosion eats a yard a year on average and is not replaced on 99.998 percent of the planet (volcanoes make land in just one or two spots iirc).

 

 

There is not enough of anything for this planet to be a million years old alone. Also in doing do you make Christ out to be a liar.

 

Luke 17:27

People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

 

 

Now I know a great number of people hold zero weight into what Christ did or did not say but for those who think he was the Son of God (Christians) and to those who think he was just a prophet (Islam and Judiasm). If he is wrong any at all - he is neither God nor prophet. So tectonic theory unwittingly destroys all 3 monothesistic cultures? To boot it doesnt make a lick of sense.

 

 

 

 

Think critically.

 

 

How do you drag the crust across the mantle? Imagine trying to drag the turf off of a stadium. Even if you could get enough force to pull it or push it you would shatter it during the attempt.

 

However, if you put a cushion of water under it - it moves much more easily.

 

No one is arguing that they moved. How they moved and how fast they moved and what cushioned them is up for debate.

 

 

If you try to push at 1 inch a year - but erode at 36 inches a year. FLASH! You are not going anywhere. You are going back.

 

What must be done - eliminate erosion by removing wind and water. this of course negates life and cannot be done.

 

What else can be done - increase the speed of the push. But tectonics is limited on speed - if you jerk the turf fast - you will shatter the crust and turn this place into a junkyard. So you need some cushioning.

 

Enter the hydroplate idea - which is brilliant. Now you can move you continents far better. Tie in the flood of Noah. Make Christ not a liar. Explain all 200+ flood myths in nearly all cultures. Explain the Grand canyon. Explain the fossilized clams on mountains all over the planet. Explain undersea erosion (underwater rivers move at 1mph and do not carve anything). Explain tablemounts.

 

 

From where I sit hydroplate ties this together far better than the tectonics. They are both theories mind you. But one explains more than the other and does not make an attempt at making Christ out to be a liar.

[Moontanman]

 

From where I sit hydroplate ties this together far better than the tectonics. They are both theories mind you. But one explains more than the other and does not make an attempt at making Christ out to be a liar.

 

Hydroplate is not a theory it is an attempt to show the bible is factual. There is no attempt to make Christ out to be a lier, Continental drift is an attempt to explain reality. If reality makes Religion out to be a lie then so be it. Proselytizing is forbidden here at hypography, we do not attempt to deny or support religion, just the facts.

[stereologist]

Why are all the continents headed towards the trenches in the Pacific Ocean?

You might as well be asking the Scarecrow's question: Why is the shore near the ocean?

 

Why are they moving so slow? 2cm a year? You must be joking? Coastal Erosion eats a yard a year on average and is not replaced on 99.998 percent of the planet (volcanoes make land in just one or two spots iirc).

These 2 issues have nothing in common.

 

There is not enough of anything for this planet to be a million years old alone. Also in doing do you make Christ out to be a liar.

It might benefit you to get out of the house and look around. The antiquity of the world has been known for centuries. Steno was one of the first to discuss the huge time periods involved in the formation of the earth. Modern science has used a host of methods both absolute and relative that clearly establish the immense antiquity of the earth.

 

How do you drag the crust across the mantle?

It's pulled not pushed. Read a book.

 

Imagine trying to drag the turf off of a stadium. Even if you could get enough force to pull it or push it you would shatter it during the attempt.

Incorrect analogy. Learn what plate tectonics is all about. Break down and read a book.

 

If you try to push at 1 inch a year - but erode at 36 inches a year. FLASH! You are not going anywhere. You are going back.

FLASH! That's not how the measurements are made.

 

Explain all 200+ flood myths in nearly all cultures.

This is my favorite stupid notion. Creationists try to tie in the flood myths. In many flood myths not all drowns. In some most animals live. In some cases it isn't even a flood of water.

 

Explain the fossilized clams on mountains all over the planet.

The first person to point out the ridiculous notion of Noah's flood giving rise to shells on mountain tops was Leonardo DaVinci. He did it simply and eloquently a long, long time ago. Creationists are 500+ years behind the times.

Explain undersea erosion (underwater rivers move at 1mph and do not carve anything).

Wow are you ever wrong here. Get the facts.

 

They are both theories mind you.

That is false. Only plate tectonics is a theory. Your 'idea' as you put it does not rank as a theory.

 

But one explains more than the other

An that is obviously plate tectonics.

[Moontanman]

Stereo, he is probably a one hit wonder. If not he needs to really read this entire thread and he needs to post a real introduction not to mention read the rules. From his post as you suggested he doesn't do much reading (hey maybe he is GWB?)

[stereologist]

I noticed he was a first poster. I read some of the introductory posts and then the latter posts.

 

I have been to a few creationist lectures and I am always amazed at the silly corruptions of geology that they claim with the intent of protecting their religion.

 

One of the earlier funnies was the notion that the material for comets originated from the earth. Very funny.

[tedrick79]

I posted a picture to and if you all look at it - the continents are headed towards the Pacific.

 

Why is coastal erosion overlooked?

 

Why is all erosion overlooked?

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Why are they moving so slow? 2cm a year? You must be joking? Coastal Erosion eats a yard a year on average and is not replaced on 99.998 percent of the planet (volcanoes make land in just one or two spots iirc).

 

These 2 issues have nothing in common.

 

 

 

It is this that has my concern. If we KNOW that the continent is moving 1 inch a year to the west.

 

We KNOW we lose a yard a year to erosion on both coasts. Why is it moving?

It is shrinking and not moving very much at all in comparision with how fast it is being eroded.

 

 

These two things - just these two - are facts. Rate of movement of North America to the west. Rate of coastal erosion on north america.

 

This is like pushing an iceberg through the Gobi. It won't move faster than it melts.

 

 

Pushed or pulled makes no matter. You are dragging rock across rock. Nothing to lubricate it. The magma exists deeper in the core - not betwixt the crust and mantle.

 

 

To focus some - can we just stick to the rate of movement versus the rate of erosion on the continents. How can these things be and this place be millions of years old?

 

To wit - 1 million yards is 914 kilometers. 568 Miles worth of coast erosion every million years.

 

The planetary average width of the continental shelf is 80 kilometers which is 87,489 yards. So with that right there the average wear on the average shelf is 87,489 years old.

 

 

Now something is really wrong. Because 87,489 is no where near a million or a billion. How long does the evo crowd imagine we have had oceans?

[tedrick79]

I noticed he was a first poster. I read some of the introductory posts and then the latter posts.

 

I have been to a few creationist lectures and I am always amazed at the silly corruptions of geology that they claim with the intent of protecting their religion.

 

One of the earlier funnies was the notion that the material for comets originated from the earth. Very funny.

 

I will stick with this. Comets came from Earth. Why?

 

Earth has water.

 

Space vaporizes water. Therefore water does not occur in space.

 

All you need to get water into extraorbital speeds is energy. Place water under the continents - crack it - and you have the energy to get water spraying all over the solar system.

 

 

This theory is just as good as the - it magically occurred in space theory.

 

We also have a good idea of the number of comets. We also know how fast they crash. We do not have enough to have been eating them up for the past billion years. Comets are recent.

 

 

 

" Energies of Long-Period Comets. The tall red bar represents 465 comets with extremely high energy—comets that could, in theory, travel far from the Sun, such as 2,000 AU, 10,000 AU, 50,000 AU, or infinity. These comets, traveling on long, narrow ellipses that are almost parabolas, are called near-parabolic comets. Those who believe that this tall bar locates the source of comets usually substitute “50,000 AU” for this broad (actually infinite) range and say that comets are falling in from those distances. Because near-parabolic comets fall in from all directions, this possible comet source is called the “Oort shell” or “Oort cloud,” named after Jan Oort who proposed its existence in 1950. (No one has detected the Oort cloud with a telescope or any other sensing device.31 Mathematical errors led to the belief that a cloud of cometary material, called the Oort cloud, surrounds the solar system.32) All we can say is that 71% of the long-period comets, those represented by the red bar, are falling in with similar and very large energies.

 

 

As a comet “loops in” near the Sun, it interacts gravitationally with planets, gaining or losing energy. The green line represents parabolic orbits, the boundary separating elliptical orbits from hyperbolic orbits (i.e., closed orbits from open orbits). If a comet gains enough energy to nudge it to the right of the green line, it will be expelled from the solar system forever. This happened with the few outgoing hyperbolic comets represented by the short, black bar. Incoming hyperbolic comets have never been seen 33—a very important point. About half of all comets will lose energy with each orbit, so their orbits shorten, making collisions with the planets and Sun more likely and vaporization from the Sun’s heat more rapid. So, with each shift to the left (loss of energy), a comet’s chance of survival drops. Few long-period comets would survive the many gravity perturbations needed to make them short-period comets. However, there are about a hundred times more short-period comets than one would expect based on all the gravity perturbations needed.34 (Short-period comets would be far to the left of the above figure.)

 

If planetary perturbations acted on a steady supply of near-parabolic comets for millions of years, the number of comets in each interval should correspond to the shape of the yellow area.35 The small number of actual comets in that area (shown by the blue bars) indicates how few near-parabolic comets have made multiple trips into the inner solar system. Question: Where are the many comets that should have survived their first trip but with slightly less energy? Hasn’t enough time passed for them to show up? After only millions of years, blue bars should more or less fill the yellow area. Figure 150 shows us that the evidence which should be clearly seen if comets have been orbiting the Sun for only millions of years—let alone billions of years—does not exist. In other words, near-parabolic comets have not been orbiting the Sun for millions of years.

 

Notice the tall red bar. If these 465 near-parabolic comets had made many earlier orbits, their gravitational interaction with planets would have randomly added or subtracted considerable energy, flattening and spreading out the red bar. As you can see, near-parabolic comets are falling in for the first time.36 Were they launched in a burst from near the center of the solar system, and are they just now returning to the planetary region again, falling back from all directions? If so, how did this happen?

 

* The horizontal axis represents 1/a, a proxy for energy per unit mass. The term “a” is a comet’s semimajor axis. Each interval has a width of 10-3 (1/AU)."

 

 

Taken from:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - How Comets Move

[tedrick79]

Stereo, he is probably a one hit wonder. If not he needs to really read this entire thread and he needs to post a real introduction not to mention read the rules. From his post as you suggested he doesn't do much reading (hey maybe he is GWB?)

 

I did an introduction in that part of the forum. I have read about both the hydroplate and tectonic theories. Both are tied into the matter or Origins - which I am highly interested. It is hard to find a forum that fosters any respect for the idea of design at all.

 

Hydroplate is definetely by design. Water under the continents? How'd that get there?:eek2:

 

Tectonics old earth theory and that cannot be because there is not enough surface erosion for the planet to be that old.

[tedrick79]

You might as well be asking the Scarecrow's question: Why is the shore near the ocean?

 

 

These 2 issues have nothing in common.

 

 

It might benefit you to get out of the house and look around. The antiquity of the world has been known for centuries. Steno was one of the first to discuss the huge time periods involved in the formation of the earth. Modern science has used a host of methods both absolute and relative that clearly establish the immense antiquity of the earth.

 

 

It's pulled not pushed. Read a book.

 

 

Incorrect analogy. Learn what plate tectonics is all about. Break down and read a book.

 

 

FLASH! That's not how the measurements are made.

 

 

This is my favorite stupid notion. Creationists try to tie in the flood myths. In many flood myths not all drowns. In some most animals live. In some cases it isn't even a flood of water.

 

 

The first person to point out the ridiculous notion of Noah's flood giving rise to shells on mountain tops was Leonardo DaVinci. He did it simply and eloquently a long, long time ago. Creationists are 500+ years behind the times.

 

Wow are you ever wrong here. Get the facts.

 

 

That is false. Only plate tectonics is a theory. Your 'idea' as you put it does not rank as a theory.

 

 

An that is obviously plate tectonics.

 

So much venom.

[Moontanman]

I posted a picture to and if you all look at it - the continents are headed towards the Pacific.

 

Why is coastal erosion overlooked?

 

Why is all erosion overlooked?

 

First of all i have to ask did you bother to read this entire thread before you decided to show us we all are idiots? Erosion is not a linear thing. the east coast erodes as fast as the west coast so your idea that erosion is responsible for the apparent movement is invalid.

 

 

Quote:

Why are they moving so slow? 2cm a year? You must be joking? Coastal Erosion eats a yard a year on average and is not replaced on 99.998 percent of the planet (volcanoes make land in just one or two spots iirc).

 

These 2 issues have nothing in common.

 

See what I wrote above

 

 

It is this that has my concern. If we KNOW that the continent is moving 1 inch a year to the west.

 

We KNOW we lose a yard a year to erosion on both coasts. Why is it moving?

It is shrinking and not moving very much at all in comparision with how fast it is being eroded.

 

 

These two things - just these two - are facts. Rate of movement of North America to the west. Rate of coastal erosion on north america.

 

To be taken seriously you are going to have to show some proof of these figures and how they relate to movements of the continents.

 

 

This is like pushing an iceberg through the Gobi. It won't move faster than it melts.

 

Glaciers are the equivalent of iceburgs on land and they do indeed move faster than they melt. What is your point?

 

Pushed or pulled makes no matter. You are dragging rock across rock. Nothing to lubricate it. The magma exists deeper in the core - not betwixt the crust and mantle.

 

I know this might be difficult for you to understand but at the temperatures and pressures of the crust mantle interface the rocks act like a very thick liquid, not the solid rocks we know at the surface.

 

To focus some - can we just stick to the rate of movement versus the rate of erosion on the continents. How can these things be and this place be millions of years old?

To wit - 1 million yards is 914 kilometers. 568 Miles worth of coast erosion every million years.

 

Uplift more than compensates for this. land is created by uplift as fast or in some cases faster than erosion.

 

The planetary average width of the continental shelf is 80 kilometers which is 87,489 yards. So with that right there the average wear on the average shelf is 87,489 years old.

 

This makes no sense to me, what are you trying to say?

 

Now something is really wrong. Because 87,489 is no where near a million or a billion. How long does the evo crowd imagine we have had oceans?

 

The Earths oceans have existed in one form or another for close to 4 billion years, in that time the continents we see have COME AND GONE MANY TIMES! No one says the present continents of the earth are 4 billion years old. I suggest you do some honest to God research on the earth's geological processes.

[Buffy]

Let's try something simple.

 

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

 

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

 

Third describe the timing and mechanisms required for the "squirting" to a) achieve the observed cometary orbits and :eek2: explain why the distribution is not greater than observed.

 

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

 

The Universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper, :eek2:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I did an introduction in that part of the forum. I have read about both the hydroplate and tectonic theories. Both are tied into the matter or Origins - which I am highly interested. It is hard to find a forum that fosters any respect for the idea of design at all.

 

Hydroplate is definetely by design. Water under the continents? How'd that get there?:eek2:

 

Tectonics old earth theory and that cannot be because there is not enough surface erosion for the planet to be that old.

 

ID has no respect because it deserves none, there is no water under the continents and as long as you allow bronze age fairy tales to dictate your reality you will get the same invalid results...