Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory

[fool]

I have a degree in Earth Science from the University of Waikato.

Then why are you asking us what the current theory is? Didn't they cover that?

 

[Stripe]

Yeah they covered it briefly. I remember the lecture where Cam Nelson told us that convection currents were probably responsible for plate movement, but that there were several problems with the theory and nobody knew for sure.

That was it. We spent the rest of the time staring at rocks and being told how they were put there by plate tectonics.

 

[fool]

Yeah they covered it briefly. I remember the lecture where Cam Nelson told us that convection currents were probably responsible for plate movement, but that there were several problems with the theory and nobody knew for sure.

That was it. We spent the rest of the time staring at rocks and being told how they were put there by plate tectonics.

Well then, sounds like a wide open field of inquiry.

 

[Stripe]

*grin*

 

[Johnny]

Since you, a non-geologist...

I have a degree in Earth Science from the University of Waikato.

That doesn't make you a geologist.

 

[Stripe]

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.

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.)

I think this covers it..

 

[Stripe]

That doesn't make you a geologist.

Nothing is going to make me a geologist.

 

[Clete]

I sent off an email asking about this plate movement "problem" and I got in response a link to the chapter about the formation of oceanic trenches. Interestingly I just happen to be right at that point in Mr. Brown's book! Had I waited another day before asking the question, I would have had the answer already.

For an answer simply read the chapter on oceanic trenches. The online version can be found at the following link...

The Origin of Oceanic Trenches

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Stripe]

I'm going to stop using the word "centripetal" as the sphericity of the Earth is perfectly understandable using the word "gravity". Why do physicists make up a term called centripetal force when it's not even a force?

more information in this post puts to rest the problems brought up by AHarvey. All it required was a second read.

 

[Johnny]

Why do physicists make up a term called centripetal force when it's not even a force?

It's a "required" force.

Imagine you're designing a satellite. You want it to orbit the earth without falling towards or moving away from the earth. You're also given the projected altitude of your satellite by your project manager. You know the mass of your satellite. How do you know what speed your satellite must orbit to achieve the perfect orbit (not falling towards or moving away from the Earth)?

You calculate the velocity at which the centripetal force is equal to the gravitational force.

Physicists decided to name the force and define it. It's quite practical in a variety of situations.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah. I learnt something about maths if nothing else

 

[Clete]

Walt Brown has asked me to pass along to TOL his offer to answer any questions concerning the hydro-plate theory provided that the caller has read the book or the complete website edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. (The website edition is more up to date than is the 7th edition hard copy.) His phone number can be found at the bottom of any page on his web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[aharvey]

Walt Brown has asked me to pass along to TOL his offer to answer any questions concerning the hydro-plate theory provided that the caller has read the book or the complete website edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. (The website edition is more up to date than is the 7th edition hard copy.) His phone number can be found at the bottom of any page on his web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I wonder why he won't get his email address working instead? Telephone conversations are perhaps the worst possible way to address scientific issues, especially ones in which pictures are such a critical component. Hey, wait, earlier you said you sent off an email. Does that mean his email is up and running again? I'll give it a try.

Meanwhile, let me touch on a couple of points that have come up here since I've been away.

You are saying that according to the theory, ... 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!

Clete, this is exactly what I'm saying, and exactly what the model says. I've posted some direct quotes earlier. Keep also in mind that the whole thing starts from a microscopic crack at the surface that quickly reaches the water below and completely encircles the globe. That's a sealed system stretched tight!

And one point of clarification, that's makes me sort of still think I might be missing part of your argument...
You said...

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.

In the analogy you provided, the balls poorly represent the hydroplate, because in stark contrast to the hydroplate model, they cover only a tiny fraction of the basalt floor (the rug in your version), and it is in those places where the balls no longer cover the rug that that the model says the rug would rise, which still leaves the balls surrounded by pushed-up rug and nowhere to go.

In my interpretation, the rug is the hydroplate, and the floor underneath is the basalt floor. This more accurately reflects the pre-rupture relationship between the hydroplate and the basalt floor; for a scale-appropriate subterranean water layer, coat the floor with a couple layers of slick varnish. When you push up or cut away the edge of the rug, this allows the floor directly under those cutaway parts to rise, and even with a perfectly lubricated layer between the rug and the floor, the rug would have nowhere to slide.

I sent off an email asking about this plate movement "problem" and I got in response a link to the chapter about the formation of oceanic trenches. Interestingly I just happen to be right at that point in Mr. Brown's book! Had I waited another day before asking the question, I would have had the answer already.

For an answer simply read the chapter on oceanic trenches. The online version can be found at the following link...

The Origin of Oceanic Trenches

You're still not quite caught up with my posts. I've already read this section with this topic in mind, and discussed how it doesn't seem to help at all. Short form: that section only discusses the origin of a Pacific trench as a result of the formation of the mid-Atlantic Ridge, but there are a number of trenches and ridges in each of the oceans, and the mechanisms he describes to generate the first two would actively prevent the others from being formed (try, for example, to account for the Pacific Ridge that occurs between the Atlantic Ridge-Pacific Trench pair that Walt discusses). And always keep in mind that it is irrelevant whether or not the surface at any given location is currently underwater; what matters is whether the surface represents hydroplate or basaltic floor.

 

[Clete]

I wonder why he won't get his email address working instead? Telephone conversations are perhaps the worst possible way to address scientific issues, especially ones in which pictures are such a critical component. Hey, wait, earlier you said you sent off an email. Does that mean his email is up and running again? I'll give it a try.

I got just the tiniest bit creative when I discovered that the email address on the website doesn't work any more.

And this silliness about telephone conversations being "perhaps the worst possible way to address scientific issues" is an excuse. It's not as if you are looking for a full length fully annotated dissertation on every detail of the hyrdo-plate theory. If you've read the book, call him and ask your questions and then report to us here what his answers were or else if you really don't want to call him then think it through and figure out how to get in contact with him another way.

You're still not quite caught up with my posts. I've already read this section with this topic in mind, and discussed how it doesn't seem to help at all. Short form: that section only discusses the origin of a Pacific trench as a result of the formation of the mid-Atlantic Ridge, but there are a number of trenches and ridges in each of the oceans, and the mechanisms he describes to generate the first two would actively prevent the others from being formed (try, for example, to account for the Pacific Ridge that occurs between the Atlantic Ridge-Pacific Trench pair that Walt discusses). And always keep in mind that it is irrelevant whether or not the surface at any given location is currently underwater; what matters is whether the surface represents hydroplate or basaltic floor.

You seem to regularly confuse the hydro-plates with the basalt layer underneath and so forgive me but I am having a hard time taking your objections seriously. You seem more interested in finding ways to maintain your objections than you are in finding potential answers to those objections or in understanding them when you do find them.

My apologies for having not understood your objection sooner but notice that I didn't just blow it off once I did understand what you were getting at.

No one has suggested, for example that the processes being described in the hydro-plate theory are so simple and completely understood as to not allow for anomalous occurrences of trenches or even mountain ranges and various other geologic formations that might not be readily explainable by a simple application of the most basic principles of the theory. The fact of the matter is that the hydro-plate theory, for all it potential problems, would explain a hell of a lot more than does plate-tectonics, and it does so with far fewer assumptions at the outset, using well understood processes. Plate-tectonics assumes seemingly whatever the crap it needs to in order to maintain itself and cannot explain even the most basic aspects (even on a conceptual level) about the mechanism which is causing the plates to move in the first place.

Now, as to whether or not Brown's chapter on trenches answers your objection to one degree or another, I cannot say as I have yet to read it. But I'd wager that it explains it a whole lot more than you seem willing to acknowledge. But whether that is the case or not, I hope to have more to contribute on the subject in a day or so once I've read through the material.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[aharvey]

I got just the tiniest bit creative when I discovered that the email address on the website doesn't work any more.

And this silliness about telephone conversations being "perhaps the worst possible way to address scientific issues" is an excuse. It's not as if you are looking for a full length fully annotated dissertation on every detail of the hyrdo-plate theory. If you've read the book, call him and ask your questions and then report to us here what his answers were or else if you really don't want to call him then think it through and figure out how to get in contact with him another way.

As I've said before, I have no fear of talking to Walt Brown directly, I just don't want my first question to be "so what exactly does your model say happens?"

You seem to regularly confuse the hydro-plates with the basalt layer underneath and so forgive me but I am having a hard time taking your objections seriously.

I more than freely admit to having trouble keeping the hydroplate and basalt layers straight in Brown's model, at least once the rupture really gets going. Pre-flood it's quite straightforward (top hydroplate next hydroshell next basaltic oceanic crust), but no one has yet been able to answer my question about which areas are which today. And so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that you're no less confused about the hydroplates and the oceanic crust than me, but you just haven't realized it yet.

You seem more interested in finding ways to maintain your objections than you are in finding potential answers to those objections or in understanding them when you do find them.

Are you talking to me or to yourself here? On what basis do you judge my motivations thusly? I think I've been pretty careful about laying out my understanding of the model, my questions about the model, my objections to (my interpretation of) the model.

My apologies for having not understood your objection sooner but notice that I didn't just blow it off once I did understand what you were getting at.

I appreciate that, but I have to say that it seems that you were stuck there for so long because you were "more interested in finding ways to maintain your objections than you are in finding potential answers to those objections or in understanding them when you do find them." Perhaps it would be best to focus on the topic and not the underlying motivations. On the one hand, it should be no great surprise that I would be skeptical of the hydroplate theory. On the other hand, it should be no great surprise that I would be pleased to see a viable creationist theory on any topic, as I've been practically begging to be shown one since my first day at TOL.

No one has suggested, for example that the processes being described in the hydro-plate theory are so simple and completely understood as to not allow for anomalous occurrences of trenches or even mountain ranges and various other geologic formations that might not be readily explainable by a simple application of the most basic principles of the theory.

Yikes, now we're back to your "every little detail" fallacy? I'm not asking the hydroplate theory to explain everything; I do expect it to explain at least the most important of the things it claims to explain, like the general location of the continents, the mid-Oceanic Ridge, and the oceanic trenches! These aren't minor details, they are the very heart of the model, wouldn't you say? And it would be a major misreading on my part if Brown is in fact claiming that the hydroplate model is intended to explain only the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Marianas Trench!

The fact of the matter is that the hydro-plate theory, for all it potential problems, would explain a hell of a lot more than does plate-tectonics, and it does so with far fewer assumptions at the outset, using well understood processes. Plate-tectonics assumes seemingly whatever the crap it needs to in order to maintain itself and cannot explain even the most basic aspects (even on a conceptual level) about the mechanism which is causing the plates to move in the first place.

I know a fair amount about plate tectonics, which gives me a rather different take on it than yours, but the validity of plate tectonics in fact has no bearing on the validity of the hydroplate model. However, if you're serious about rejecting unrealistic, unexplainable assumptions that seem to exist solely to prop up one's preconceptions, I will ask you to keep in mind that the fundamental assumption of the hydroplate theory is that the surface of the Earth once consisted of a continuous, 3/4 mile deep worldwide layer of water covered by a 10-mile deep sealed, impermeable layer of granite!

Now, as to whether or not Brown's chapter on trenches answers your objection to one degree or another, I cannot say as I have yet to read it.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that, given that you earlier claimed it answered my concerns.

But I'd wager that it explains it a whole lot more than you seem willing to acknowledge.

I'd take that bet. But I'll be nice, and suggest that you read it as carefully as you want, then read my previous posts, and see if you can answer them with that chapter.

But whether that is the case or not, I hope to have more to contribute on the subject in a day or so once I've read through the material.

Excellent. An observation: it's quite possible for the words of a document to make sense to you as you're reading them, even if the document in total doesn't make any sense. I've been unable to go from Brown's ruptured hydroplates to anything remotely approximating today's distribution of continents, ridges, and trenches. I'm not talking specific shapes of these features, I'm simply talking about, say, the east-to-west order of trenches, plates, and ridges. I'm talking about going from wall-to-wall hydroplate to less-than-half hydroplate. I'll be most interested if you can work this out.

 

[aharvey]

This thread's been pretty quiet the last few days ...

On a hint from Clete, I sent an email to Walt Brown that didn't bounce, so that's a step up. No reply as of yet ...

Have a good weekend!

 

[Clete]

This thread's been pretty quiet the last few days ...

On a hint from Clete, I sent an email to Walt Brown that didn't bounce, so that's a step up. No reply as of yet ...

Have a good weekend!

I'm still reading the chapter on trench formation (I've been crazy busy this week) but I'd love it if you would post the text of your email here on the thread and then post whatever response you get.

 

[aharvey]

I'm going to stop using the word "centripetal" as the sphericity of the Earth is perfectly understandable using the word "gravity". Why do physicists make up a term called centripetal force when it's not even a force?

more information in this post puts to rest the problems brought up by AHarvey. All it required was a second read.

stipe, sorry I missed the last paragraph in this post. I'm afraid you are going to have to do more here than say "read this stuff again; it answers all your questions," because this is the text that inspired my concerns in the first place! So what exactly in this verbiage allows the formation of trenches and ridges in all the major oceans? What exactly explains where the hydroplate slides to without sealing up the back end of the rupture? Surely by now you realize that the "coulda slide 400 miles" text you bold-faced implies that the two plates that slide away from each other along the Atlantic side could only reach their 400-mile potential by meeting each other over the Pacific side.

 

[aharvey]

I'm still reading the chapter on trench formation (I've been crazy busy this week) but I'd love it if you would post the text of your email here on the thread and then post whatever response you get.

Perhaps it's because this is more closely related to my profession than it is to most folks here, but I'm reluctant to post for general TOL consumption private emails that I've sent to or received from other individuals, at least without their consent. Not that I haven't been tempted, as I've had some remarkable correspondence with some of the heavy hitters in the creationist world.

However, I can tell you that I asked him one question, the same one I mentioned in the last two paragraphs of this post. And if I do hear from him, I will ask him if he would mind my posting or at least summarizing our discussion.

 

[aharvey]

on a sliding scale

on a sliding scale

One of the things I like about the subject of biogeography is how it teaches you, no, requires you, to consider the same question/system from a variety of scales. For example, in Walt Brown's hydroplate model, we learn that the original globally sealed, 10 mile thick hydroplate is torn asunder by a 46000 mile long rift that expands into a rupture 800 miles wide. The development of this rupture causes the underlying crust to push up in the middle of the rupture, quickly reaching nearly 10 miles high (almost as high as the hydroplate is thick), resulting in a slope upon which the perfectly lubricated crust proceeds to slide.

These are all really big impressive numbers on our human scale, but what do they mean on a global scale? Well, that's surprisingly tricky to show on the web, but I've taken a shot at it here (pardon the partially duplicated text!). Remember, too, that even these figures underrepresent the true scale, because they are two-dimensional cross-sections of a three-dimensional phenomenon.