Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory

Status
Not open for further replies.

aharvey

New member
stipe said:
or wait .. Clete's stament doesn't translate anymore .. I say the hydroplates slid after the ridge rose...
I'm glad you fixed that: Clete was saying something very different!

Anyways, another point I've been wondering about is how water escaping from the margins of the hydroplate can erode away and clean out a rupture 800 miles wide? Here's the link where I ponder this, with pictures.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
aharvey said:
Anyways, another point I've been wondering about is how water escaping from the margins of the hydroplate can erode away and clean out a rupture 800 miles wide? Here's the link where I ponder this, with pictures.

Stay tuned. An "Argument from Incredulity" coming up. :wave:
 

Jukia

New member
bob b said:
Stay tuned. An "Argument from Incredulity" coming up. :wave:
An argument from incredulity? aharvey seems to be spending hours trying to understand what Brown is saying. He is trying not to make an argument from incredulity. He is trying to make sense of Brown's theory.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
An argument from incredulity? aharvey seems to be spending hours trying to understand what Brown is saying. He is trying not to make an argument from incredulity. He is trying to make sense of Brown's theory.
I concur.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hey Jukia. Is heat generated in a rocky body as a result of centripetal force?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you took a rotating body that was hard and solid and removed mass from one side, centipetal forces would at least try to make it into a sphere again. Even if those forces were insufficient to make any changes to the shape of the body, where would the energy go?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
An argument from incredulity? aharvey seems to be spending hours trying to understand what Brown is saying. He is trying not to make an argument from incredulity. He is trying to make sense of Brown's theory.

I've been wondering about is how water escaping from the margins of the hydroplate can erode away and clean out a rupture 800 miles wide?

I'm waiting for the punch line. :wave:
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
stipe said:
If you took a rotating body that was hard and solid and removed mass from one side, centipetal forces would at least try to make it into a sphere again. Even if those forces were insufficient to make any changes to the shape of the body, where would the energy go?
Wouldn't the bodies center of mass change?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
fool said:
Wouldn't the bodies center of mass change?
I would imagine so, which would induce a wobble or two. But centripetal force acts on any rotating body regardless of the center of gravity.
 

aharvey

New member
bob b said:
Stay tuned. An "Argument from Incredulity" coming up. :wave:
This from the author of the "Cell Trends one and too" threads??? Perhaps you don't understand what arguing from incredulity actually means!

If I were to say that what this picture illustrates can't possibly happen, would you dismiss my claim as an "Argument from Incredulity"? This is directly analogous to my main problem with the hydroplate. And I'm not even sure that I'm basing this on a correct reading of the model (and yes, I've tried contacting Brown directly, but the address at the web site had "permanent fatal errors"), though the more I read the more confident I get.

But instead of criticizing something I haven't even done yet, I encourage you to instead let us all know when I actually commit your "argument from incredulity" fallacy.

And meanwhile, perhaps you can provide the elusive answer to this simple question, best considered while viewing Walt Brown's own artist's rendition of the global view of the ruptured hydroplate:

When both of those two hydroplate pieces (encircled and indeed defined by that glowing rupture) start sliding away from the ridge that is about to rise up in the rupture, where will each of them be sliding to?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
aharvey said:
I'm glad you fixed that: Clete was saying something very different!
No I wasn't.

Somehow you and I just aren't on the same wavelength here. It's no wonder we can't make any progress.

Could you try again to explain the objection we were going over before? I just can't believe that what it sounds like you were saying is what you were actually saying. I just have to be missing your point somehow.

----------------------------------------

Well okay, I just read the post immediately preceding this one and post 135 and I think I get the point now. Let me rephrase it in my own words and then you can tell me if I understand what you are getting at.

You are saying that according to the theory, the layer of water under the plates encircled the entire globe and was in fact a continuous and intact sphere of water which these plates sat upon and sealed perfectly which means that they too must have been a continuous and totally intact, 10 mile thick sphere of granite and so you don't see how they would had slide anywhere because if a rift formed, all you would have is a huge cracked sphere of granite that stretch all the way around the planet and even if they wanted to slide they couldn't because the pieces would almost immediately run into each other. It would be like the pieces of ice in my glass of Dr. Pepper trying to slide around at the top of the glass. There's no where for them to go other than right into one another.

If that is what you are getting at, and IF the theory makes the assumption that it was an intact sphere of water sealed in by a 10 mile thick sphere of granite then I'd say you have a good question here. But I do not think that it makes those assumptions although I'm not sure how the water would be sealed in otherwise. I'll get into it and see if I can fing and answer to the question. But let me know if I am still missing the point so I don't waste a bunch of time, okay!

And one point of clarification, that's makes me sort of still think I might be missing part of your argument...
You said...
Who cares about the balls; when you push up all the edges of the rug, where does the rug itself slide to?
The ball in my analogy represents the hydro-plate not the basalt floor of the subterranean water chamber. It is the basalt floor which rose and form the ridge, not the hydro-plates and so your question "where does the rug itself slide too" doesn't track.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
If that is what you are getting at, and IF the theory makes the assumption that it was an intact sphere of water sealed in by a 10 mile thick sphere of granite then I'd say you have a good question here...
It is a good question. I had trouble with it on reading the website through. I may have missed the explanation though. I think if the point wasn't addressed by Walt then it should be and if it was it needs to be made clearer...
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'll add to this post as I find relevant information.

I'll add to this post as I find relevant information.

Let me see if I can paste in some text that might help:

Before the global flood, considerable water was under the earth’s crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates.

Both the plate tectonic theory and the hydroplate theory claim plates have moved over the globe. The plate tectonic theory says plates move, by an unknown mechanism, slowly and continuously for hundreds of millions of years. The hydroplate theory, using an understood mechanism, says a few hydroplates moved rapidly at the end of a global flood. Upon collision, they fragmented into pieces which today are shifting slowly, but in jerks, toward equilibrium.

Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown in Figure 51 on page 109, but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the preflood crust were seas, both deep and shallow, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.

Flood Phase. Each side of the rupture was basically a 10-mile-high cliff. Compressive, vibrating loads in the bottom half of the cliff face greatly exceeded the rock’s crushing strength, so the bottom half of the cliff continuously crumbled, collapsed, and spilled out into the jetting fountains. That removed support for the top half of the cliff, so it also fragmented and fell into the pulverizing supersonic flow. Consequently, the 46,000-mile-long rupture rapidly widened to an average of about 800 miles all around the earth.

As the Mid-Atlantic Ridge began to rise, creating slopes on either side, the granite hydroplates started to slide downhill. This removed even more weight from what was to become the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. As weight was removed, the floor rose faster and the slopes increased, so the hydroplates accelerated, removing even more weight, etc. The entire Atlantic floor rapidly rose almost 10 miles.

The continental-drift phase began with hydroplates sliding “downhill” on a layer of water, away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This removed more weight from the rising portion of the subterranean chamber floor, causing it to rise even faster and accelerate the hydroplates even more. (If you are wondering how the hydroplates could slide away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge without meeting large resistances on the opposite side of the earth, see the paragraph “Continental plates ...” on page 115.)

Obviously, the great confining pressure in the mantle and core did not allow deep voids to open up under the rising Atlantic floor. So even deeper material was “sucked” upward. Throughout the inner earth, material shifted toward the rising Atlantic floor, forming a broader, but shallower, depression on the opposite side of the earth—what is now the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Just as the Atlantic floor stretched horizontally as it rose, the western Pacific floor compressed horizontally as it subsided. Subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans began a startling 20–25 minutes after the Atlantic floor began its rise, the time it takes stresses and strains from a seismic wave to pass through the earth. Both movements contributed to the “downhill” slide of hydroplates.

Continental plates accelerated away from the widening Atlantic. (Recall that the rupture encircled the earth, and escaping subterranean water widened that rupture about 400 miles on each side of the rupture, not just on what is now the Atlantic side of the earth but also on the Pacific side. Thus, the plates on opposite sides of the Atlantic could slide at least 400 miles away from the rising Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In the next chapter, dramatic events occurring simultaneously in the Pacific will be explained.)
 
Last edited:

Johnny

New member
stipe said:
The plate tectonic theory says plates move, by an unknown mechanism, slowly and continuously for hundreds of millions of years.
I'm pretty sure there is a proposed mechanism.

Edit: Yep. That page goes over the history of mechanisms and some of the problems with each. Wikipedia's article also has some explanation.

I have a simple question. Does Walt Brown accept that each plate is still moving?
 

Johnny

New member
Looks like a combination of the mechanisms listed on the page I linked. The two hypothesis at the top of the page were discounted, the rest seem to be integrated into a larger model.

Wikipedia says, "Plates are able to move because of the relative density of oceanic lithosphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere. Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the original source of energy driving plate tectonics, but it is no longer thought that the plates ride passively on asthenospheric convection currents. Instead, it is accepted that the excess density of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones drives plate motions. When it forms at mid-ocean ridges, the oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the underlying asthenosphere, but it becomes more dense with age, as it conductively cools and thickens. The greater density of old lithosphere relative to the underlying asthenosphere allows it to sink into the deep mantle at subduction zones, providing most of the driving force for plate motions. The weakness of the asthenosphere allows the tectonic plates to move easily towards a subduction zone."
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's ridiculous. It sounds like the driving mechanism for plate movement is plate movement.
 

Johnny

New member
stipe said:
That's ridiculous. It sounds like the driving mechanism for plate movement is plate movement.
Well, read another source or find one you understand. Let me ask you this. Since you, a non-geologist, came up with that "criticism" in the matter of a few minutes, do you think that a a body geologists whose collective members have spent lifetimes studying and testing the various models would eventually settle on a model which reduces to "the driving mechanism for plate movement is plate movement"?

If not, why in the world would you quickly proclaim that the idea is "ridiculous"? Wouldn't a better statement be something like "It sounds like X, which is ridiculous, so my understanding is probably incorrect"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top