Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory

[Clete]

I think I've described this well enough in my earlier descriptions, but this model appears to leave out some very important points, which are left out of your description as well. I've discussed these already, so I'll just summarize here. The rift is planet-wide, which means that every piece of the broken hydroplate is completely surrounded by the rift. If the ridge pushes up everywhere along the ridge, then the hydroplate pieces have nowhere to slide, since they would be pushed in all directions. If the ridge pushes up in one place first (e.g., the Atlantic), then the hydroplate pieces have nowhere to slide unless the rupture reaches its full 800-mile width everywhere else but without the accompanying ridge, which itself leads to three different problems: 1) ridge formation seems to be an inevitable consequence of the formation of the 800-mile rupture, so it seems inappropriate to suggest that it only happened as needed to produce the desired result, 2) even a ridgeless 800-mile rupture in the Pacific gives each hydroplate piece only 400 miles to slide before the back ends of the pieces meet, 3) as the pieces slide over the Pacific rupture, they close it off, interfering with the formation of the Mid-Pacific Ridge.

I can't understand how this could be a genuine objection. The explanation is so simple as to be ridiculous, frankly. The land masses would flow away from which ever ridge they were closest too at the time the rupture occurred. Even if the ridge created a perfectly symmetrical bowl, which it did not, if a land masses start position was close to the edge of this bowl then it would slide in the direction of least resistance toward the bowls center and would continue to gravitationally accelerate in that direction until something acted to slow and/or stop it.

Now I'm either totally not understanding your question or that completely answers it.

I can't quite figure out why this is such a difficult question to understand, even with images and everything. Perhaps folks are getting tripped up by the existence of oceans sitting on top of the hydroplate pre-flood? Let's say there was a big ocean sitting on top of the hydroplate where the Pacific is now. A moment's thought should make it clear that a rise over in the Atlantic will in no way cause the hydroplate to slide into this pre-flood "Pacific," right? The hydroplate is already there, under the "Pacific." Even if we for the sake of argument accept the notion that the Atlantic rise causes a corresponding drop in the "Pacific" floor, meaning the hydroplate, it still has nowhere to slide.

Why wouldn't it have anywhere to slide? It makes no difference what was on top of the hydroplate because the water under it was trapped prior to the rupture and so if there was sliding happening then the water on top of the plate would have slid right along with the rest of the plate and everything else that happen to be on it.

The discussion of the formation of "oceanic trenches" (which really only covers the western Pacific trench) seems to make matters worse, because the mid-Pacific Ridge occurs between the trench and the New World Atlantic-fleeing hydroplate, and because the sequence of events that lead to the formation of an Atlantic ridge and a corresponding Pacific trench would seem to directly prevent the formation of the other ridges and trenches in the other oceans.

I don't follow this point. If I understand the theory correctly, all of the oceanic ridges were made at the same time (i.e. within minutes) and were all caused by the same event, that event being the failure of the seal which held in the subterranean waters. A failure at one point causing a chain reaction which ripped a fracture all the way around the planet at a rate of several miles a second.

Hopefullly you will agree that these are hardly "every detail of the whole theory." These are the biggest parts of the big picture.

If these are the biggest objections you have then you should be on the verge of dropping plate tectonics altogether and picking up the hydroplate theory. That, I'm sure sounds flippant and I suppose it is to a degree but seriously your objections are hardly substantive and if you do some real research into the nut and bolts of the theory beyond asking a bunch of questions on the theology forum it seems to me that all of your objections will be more than answered.

Are you this critical of the plate tectonic theory? You know it does have a lot of important gaps in its ability to explain observed phenomena (the existence and location of methane hydrates for example).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[aharvey]

I can't understand how this could be a genuine objection. The explanation is so simple as to be ridiculous, frankly.

I will agree that the explanation that follows is indeed ridiculous!

The land masses would flow away from which ever ridge they were closest too at the time the rupture occurred.

Sadly, this sentence marks your explanation as DOA. The ridges cannot not exist until after the rupture has become several hundred miles wide, since it is this self-same gap in the hydroplate that causes/allows the ridges to rise in the first place. The whole process seems to be very rapid, but if it isn’t, and the ridges on one side arise before the rupture has developed on the other side, then there is in fact nowhere for it to go. Or, if the rupture is fully developed all around but the ridge arises fully on one side before it starts on the other side, then the plate would slide back and recover the backside rupture, and no ridge would be able to develop on the backside. Try any combination you want. There’s no way to get it all to work together.

Even if the ridge created a perfectly symmetrical bowl, which it did not, if a land masses start position was close to the edge of this bowl then it would slide in the direction of least resistance toward the bowls center and would continue to gravitationally accelerate in that direction until something acted to slow and/or stop it.

Now I'm either totally not understanding your question or that completely answers it.

The former. Very definitely the former. Actually, I think you just haven’t given the hydroplate model any serious, critical thought. Because let’s think for just a second about what you just said: “if the ridge created a bowl.” Well, the only way this can happen is if the 800-mile-wide rupture in the hydroplate formed a bowl shape in the middle of which the ridge could subsequently arise, right? But what defines the inside edges of that bowl-shaped rupture? A single solid piece of hydroplate! So the land mass to which you above refer is not just close to, it's actually contacting all edges of this bowl. It completely fills up the bowl. Its own center is already on the center of the bowl. Which means that it would slide – nowhere!

Why wouldn't it have anywhere to slide? It makes no difference what was on top of the hydroplate because the water under it was trapped prior to the rupture and so if there was sliding happening then the water on top of the plate would have slid right along with the rest of the plate and everything else that happen to be on it.

I hope by now you are starting to get it. If not, perhaps you’ve forgotten that the pre-flood hydroplate is one single, impermeable, crack-free layer that completely and perfectly seals off the subterranean water level. So the only way you’re going to see that sucker sliding is by first getting rid of those nasty subterranean pillars that hold the hydroplate in place (which I mention only for completeness), next by breaking that original comprehensive, flawless hydroplate piece into several distinct hydroplate fragments (one cracked but still single piece of hydroplate ain't goin' anywhere!), and then by clearing away enough of the hydroplate from over the earth’s surface to give the remaining hydroplate pieces somewhere hydroplate-free to slide into! There’s a reason they don’t include that first piece !

I don't follow this point. If I understand the theory correctly, all of the oceanic ridges were made at the same time (i.e. within minutes) and were all caused by the same event, that event being the failure of the seal which held in the subterranean waters. A failure at one point causing a chain reaction which ripped a fracture all the way around the planet at a rate of several miles a second.

Your understanding of what the theory says is similar to mine; now just try to understand why it couldn’t possibly have happened that way.

If these are the biggest objections you have then you should be on the verge of dropping plate tectonics altogether and picking up the hydroplate theory. That, I'm sure sounds flippant and I suppose it is to a degree but seriously your objections are hardly substantive and if you do some real research into the nut and bolts of the theory beyond asking a bunch of questions on the theology forum it seems to me that all of your objections will be more than answered.

You have an odd concept of "substantive objections," if you don’t think that concern that the model describes an impossible and internally contradictory sequence of events is one.

Are you this critical of the plate tectonic theory? You know it does have a lot of important gaps in its ability to explain observed phenomena (the existence and location of methane hydrates for example).

I am inherently skeptical of most things, and have indeed found that the current understanding of plate tectonics does not explain everything. But allow me to suggest that the existence and location of methane hydrates is one of those same kind of "every little details" that you were recently taking me to task over, and at least the core model underlying modern plate tectonics is fundamentally sound.

 

[Stripe]

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is the same thing apparently, that came to NASA's mind, according to that link you provided. Especially as your "perfect match" seems rather anything but. Or at least it's not clear that the strange phenomenon Brown invokes would result in a bunch of smaller, distinct, and often quite distant depressions on one side pooling their resources, as it were, to produce one big depression on the other side.

Some maths equations would quickly determine whether this would happen or not.

 

[Clete]

aharvey,

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Your objections make no sense. No one has suggested that the plates moved until AFTER the ridge rose. If the land masses were all collected together on one side of the planet and the rupture occurred amongst these land masses then the land masses would have half the planet for a place to go once enough erosion occurred to cause the compressed basalt to rise forming the ridge.

How is that concept difficult to understand?

If you place a ball on one end of a rug in your living room and then lift one end of the rug, or even all of the edges of the rug for that matter, the ball rolls in the direction of least resistance. It's the same thing with the hydro-plates except that the plates slid rather than rolled but otherwise it's exactly the same principle. Things move down hill unless some force equal to or greater than the force of gravity pulling on the object prevents it from doing so.

I'm either not understanding your objection or you are stupid and no longer worth spending this much time with. If you can demonstrate that it is the former then I will be glad to continue, otherwise I won't be responding any further.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Stripe]

If the land masses were all collected together on one side of the planet and the rupture occurred amongst these land masses then the land masses would have half the planet for a place to go...

I was under the impression that the hydroplate would have covered the entire surface of the Earth and therefore gathering them together on one side of the planet would be impossible given that there is no left over space.

This is what aharvey is questioning and I tend to agree that the mechanics are difficult to put in chronological order, though I do tend to think things are more malleable than the strict order aharvey seems to be demanding.

 

[Stripe]

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/moonboom.htm

The early Apollo missions revealed that the moon isn't perfectly spherical. Its surface is warped in two spots; an earth-facing bulge on the near side is complemented by a large depression on the Moon's far side. Scientists have long wondered whether these surface features were caused by Earth's gravity tugging on the moon early in its existence, when its surface was still molten and malleable.

http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm

The constant gravitational force and the weakening angular momentum caused by the slowing of the Earth's rotation has had a profound effect on the Earth's geophysical activity throughout the ages. Throughout the life of the Earth there has been a continual adjusting of the Earth's shape as the ratio of the strengths of angular momentum and gravity has changed. Gravity is a centripetal force, it exerts its tremendous force inward, toward the center of gravity, always trying to form the Earth into a perfect sphere.

Given these two passages as acceptable data and proofs, would the core of the moon (and Earth) be affected by any rotation. I am of the opinion that the forces from the second paragraphs would cause friction and therefore heat throughout either body. Once rock is heated it becomes more molten and more movement is allowed.

If anyone with some mathematical training knows the formulae that we could plug shear strengths and rotational forces into it would be appreciated.

 

[bob b]

Some maths equations would quickly determine whether this would happen or not.

Not really. The situation is far too complex for any "math equations".

One could say something similar about modelling the weather, but so far this has not proven to be the case in practice.

 

[Stripe]

Not really. The situation is far too complex for any "math equations". One could say something similar about modelling the weather, but so far this has not proven to be the case in practice.

How about just the revolving sphere. Take a lump of uniform density and calculate the force exerted on it by different rotation speeds. Whats the force called?

 

[Stripe]

centripetal force

 

[Stripe]

never heard of that one before....

Hey Jukia .. I learnt some science. Will you talk to me now?

 

[Jukia]

never heard of that one before....

Hey Jukia .. I learnt some science. Will you talk to me now?

Sure. YOu beleive that the moon was bombarded by enough junk thrown off the earth to cause most of the craters on the face toward us, to blow enough stuff away to cause the other side to cave in a bit, correct? Do we know how much stuff actually reached the moon? Has anyone made an educated guess?

 

[Stripe]

How about you comment on the plausibility of heat generation within a rocky body derived from centripetal force. I can't answer all the millions of reasons you can come up with as to why you think hydroplate theory is stupid.

 

[Jukia]

How about you comment on the plausibility of heat generation within a rocky body derived from centripetal force. I can't answer all the millions of reasons you can come up with as to why you think hydroplate theory is stupid.

Why is heat generated in a rocky body as a result of centripital force? Cite please

 

[Stripe]

Why is heat generated in a rocky body as a result of centripital force? Cite please

Friction.

No cite, just comment.

 

[aharvey]

aharvey,

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Your objections make no sense. No one has suggested that the plates moved until AFTER the ridge rose.

Er, except Walt Brown himself:

"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 plates slide because of the slope caused by the ridge rise, and unless I missed where Walt describes a way for the slope caused by the ridge rise to occur before the ridge itself does, clearly you don't understand this theory as well as you think you do.

If the land masses were all collected together on one side of the planet and the rupture occurred amongst these land masses then the land masses would have half the planet for a place to go once enough erosion occurred to cause the compressed basalt to rise forming the ridge.

Um, it's not the "land masses" that matter, Clete, it's the hydroplate! The rift is in the hydroplate. The ridges push the hydroplate. The "land masses" are nothing more than the exposed part of the hydroplate. So if the hydroplate doesn't move, the land masses don't move. And pre-flood, the hydroplate completely covers the earth in a single-piece, 10-mile thick blanket that is sealed watertight until the rift appears. Walt again:

"The crust did not float on water; water was trapped and sealed under the crust. (Water pressure and pillars supported the crust.) The crust was like a thin slab of rock resting on and covering an entire waterbed. As long as the water mattress does not rupture, a dense slab will rest on top of less-dense water. Unlike a waterbed’s seal, which is only a thin sheet of rubber, the chamber’s seal was compressed rock almost 10 miles thick."​

It is this single spherical "coating" that breaks into pieces, and it is these pieces are by definition outlined by the rupture in the original spherical hydroplate, ...

"For a day or so, the sliding hydroplates were almost perfectly lubricated by water still escaping from beneath them."​

... and it is this rupture that causes and in which the ridge rises that causes each hydroplate piece to slide ... to nowhere, it's becoming increasingly apparent. Clearly you don't understand this theory as well as you think you do, but I'm thinking you've got a lot of company.

How is that concept difficult to understand?

That concept is easy to understand, it just has nothing to do with the hydroplate theory.

If you place a ball on one end of a rug in your living room and then lift one end of the rug, or even all of the edges of the rug for that matter, the ball rolls in the direction of least resistance.

Who cares about the balls; when you push up all the edges of the rug, where does the rug itself slide to?

It's the same thing with the hydro-plates except that the plates slid rather than rolled but otherwise it's exactly the same principle. Things move down hill unless some force equal to or greater than the force of gravity pulling on the object prevents it from doing so.

I'm either not understanding your objection or you are stupid and no longer worth spending this much time with. If you can demonstrate that it is the former then I will be glad to continue, otherwise I won't be responding any further.

I don't see how someone who hasn't actually read through the model can help me understand it, so I won't protest if you stop responding.

 

[Stripe]

Er, except Walt Brown himself:

"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 plates slide because of the slope caused by the ridge rise, and unless I missed where Walt describes a way for the slope caused by the ridge rise to occur before the ridge itself does, clearly you don't understand this theory as well as you think you do.

You two are saying the same thing. Clete's emphasis and wording were a little confusing.

 

[Stripe]

or wait .. Clete's stament doesn't translate anymore .. I say the hydroplates slid after the ridge rose...

 

[bob b]

Why the ridge rose

Why the ridge rose

Continental-Drift Phase. Material within the earth is compressed by overlying rock. Rock’s slight elasticity gives it springlike characteristics.44 The deeper the rock, the more weight above, so the more tightly compressed the “spring”—all the way down to the center of the earth.

The rupture path continuously widened during the flood phase. [See Figure 59e.] Eventually, the width was so great, and so much of the surface weight had been removed, that the compressed rock beneath the exposed floor of the subterranean chamber sprung upward. [See Figure 59f.]

 

[aharvey]

Continental-Drift Phase. Material within the earth is compressed by overlying rock. Rock’s slight elasticity gives it springlike characteristics.44 The deeper the rock, the more weight above, so the more tightly compressed the “spring”—all the way down to the center of the earth.

The rupture path continuously widened during the flood phase. [See Figure 59e.] Eventually, the width was so great, and so much of the surface weight had been removed, that the compressed rock beneath the exposed floor of the subterranean chamber sprung upward. [See Figure 59f.]

As I've said that the model says this in about ten different posts, for the sake of those who think I'm misinterpreting the model, could you acknowledge that what you have written here is the same as what I've written about why the ridge rises? As it is, based on past history people are likely to assume that you're correcting me here.

 

[bob b]

As I've said that the model says this in about ten different posts, for the sake of those who think I'm misinterpreting the model, could you acknowledge that what you have written here is the same as what I've written about why the ridge rises? As it is, based on past history people are likely to assume that you're correcting me here.

I did not read all of the postings, but one of the recent ones wondered where in the text it was stated why the ridge area started to rise. My intention was only to point out the pertinent text by quoting it verbatim.