Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Nick M]

This is the post flood history, which matches secular history. They have no recorded history, written or oral, before it. I had to check before posting to make sure nobody is claiming to discover something.

Is there recorded history before cradle of civilization in Iraq?

Short answer: there’s no written history before the Mesopotamian “Cradle of Civilization,” but there is a very long prehistory.

I asked about history that isn't written, and the server misunderstood.

No, what is the oral history before the writing of the cradle of civilization, as it is often called. I ask since it is claimed to predate documented history. Is there anything other than flood legends that are actually recorded?

Short, direct answer No — there is no independently recorded oral history from before the advent of writing in Mesopotamia.

 

[Nick M]

But when you drag the story out of Genesis and set it next to reality—next to the fossil record, archaeological layers, and historical timelines—it doesn’t add up as literal, global history.

This is one of the dumber sentences I have read here. Like Tampon Tim wrote that reply.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009330785585909914

Anyway, this is the fossil record and archaeological record. In part.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Clete

In The Beginning – 9th Edition | Creation Science Center

www.creationscience.com

See pages 580-583, 589-590, 595-596.

Does this help at all?

 

[Clete]

@Clete

In The Beginning – 9th Edition | Creation Science Center

www.creationscience.com

See pages 580-583, 589-590, 595-596.

Does this help at all?

Well, I'm not mathematician so I plugged a few of those pages into Chat GPT and had it analyze both the math and the argument. Here's what it said...

"The problem is not simple arithmetic. The problem is the model’s assumptions.​

​

The argument assumes that long-term comet orbital perturbations behave like independent, normally distributed random variables over thousands of years. That assumption is doing nearly all of the heavy lifting. Real comet dynamics are affected by chaotic gravitational interactions, resonance effects, outgassing, and cumulative perturbations that are not obviously well modeled by a clean Gaussian error distribution.​

​

So the calculations may show that, under those assumptions, Halley and Swift-Tuttle converge unusually near 3290 B.C. What they do not establish is that the hydroplate theory is therefore true, or that the Flood has now been scientifically demonstrated.​

​

In other words, this is a mathematically serious argument, but the strength of the conclusion exceeds the strength of the model."​

I never doubted that any math the author presented in this book would be valid. He's smarter than to have presented faulty math.
To answer your question, yes, it helps. It still feels very much like looking for the Flood behind every bush, but it isn't as implausible as I was originally thinking.

 

[Clete]

In response to pages 589-590, GPT's response mirrors some of my previous arguments...

This section is trying to argue that the escaping “supercritical water” jets in the Hydroplate Theory would naturally behave like rocket exhaust and become extremely cold as they expanded into near-vacuum conditions above the atmosphere.​

The key equation they use is a real compressible-flow relation:​

T0T=1+k−12M2\frac{T_0}{T}=1+\frac{k-1}{2}M^2TT0=1+2k−1M2​

That equation itself is legitimate. It relates stagnation temperature T0T_0T0, flow temperature TTT, Mach number MMM, and the heat-capacity ratio kkk.​

They then plug in:​

• T0≈1300∘FT_0 \approx 1300^\circ FT0≈1300∘F
• M=32/0.2=160M = 32/0.2 = 160M=32/0.2=160

and derive a downstream temperature near:​

• −459∘F-459^\circ F−459∘F, essentially absolute zero.

Here’s the problem:​

The equation is being pushed far outside the physical regime where it behaves realistically.​

A Mach 160 water-vapor flow erupting through Earth’s crust is not remotely comparable to the idealized steady-flow nozzle conditions assumed by the equation. At those energies:​

• ionization,
• plasma effects,
• radiative heating,
• shock interactions,
• turbulence,
• phase transitions,
• molecular dissociation,
• and non-equilibrium thermodynamics

all become dominant.​

In other words, the equation itself is real, but the application is deeply questionable.​

​

The biggest issue is this:​

they are treating the eruption almost like an ideal rocket nozzle in a controlled flow regime, when the actual scenario would be violently chaotic and thermodynamically extreme.​

​

Also, temperatures approaching absolute zero from such an eruption should immediately trigger skepticism. Whenever a simplified equation produces physically absurd edge-case results, that is usually a sign the model assumptions have broken down.​

​

So again, this is not fake math. The formulas are real. The issue is whether the formulas can legitimately be applied to the proposed physical situation. Here, the answer is probably no. - Chat GPT​

​

​

Basically, water vapor moving through the atmosphere at 160 times the speed of sounds, wouldn't be steam any longer. It wouldn't even be hydrogen and oxygen any more. It would be ionized versions of those things and the formulas used would no longer apply.

 

[Clete]

Finally, in response to pages 595-596, GPT gave the following response, which, once again, it's too dissimilar to the arguments I made before...

This section is considerably more mathematically careful than most people would expect, but the core issue is still the same:​

​

A mathematically consistent model is not the same thing as a physically justified model.​

​

What Brown is arguing here is essentially this:​

​

1. Before the Flood, the Moon had a perfectly circular orbit.
2. Earth had a 360-day year.
3. Therefore the synodic lunar month was exactly 30 days.

Then he attempts to explain today’s:​

​

• 365.2422-day year,
• 29.53-day lunar month,
• and present lunar orbit

as consequences of debris ejected from Earth impacting the Moon.​

​

Now, the orbital mechanics equations themselves are real. He is using:​

​

• conservation of momentum,
• specific orbital energy,
• hyperbolic trajectory equations,
• angular momentum relations,
• vis-viva type equations,
• and standard conic-section orbital formulas.

That is genuine celestial mechanics.​

​

The calculations are not random nonsense.​

​

However, there are several enormous physical problems.​

​

The biggest one is energy.​

​

He is proposing that:​

​

• 3% of Earth’s mass was launched into space,
• some fraction struck the Moon,
• and this altered the Moon’s orbit from a perfectly circular 30-day system to the present one.

The amount of energy required for this is almost incomprehensible. We are talking about energies rivaling or exceeding major planetary formation-scale events.​

​

At that level:​

​

• Earth’s crust would not remain remotely intact,
• oceans would vaporize globally,
• the atmosphere would become plasma-like,
• and the thermal consequences would be catastrophic far beyond what the model discusses.

Another major issue:
he assumes the Moon originally had a perfectly circular orbit with eccentricity exactly zero.​

​

Real orbital systems almost never remain perfectly circular because gravitational systems naturally develop perturbations over time. That assumption appears chosen largely because it simplifies the math and conveniently yields exactly 30 days.​

​

Also, the argument subtly reverses explanation order.​

​

He begins with:​

​

• biblical references to 150 days over 5 months,
• ancient calendars using 30-day months,
• and cultural references,

then builds a physical model that reproduces that conclusion.​

​

That is not necessarily illegitimate, but it means the model is partly constrained by the target outcome from the start.​

​

One thing I will say in fairness:
Brown is clearly intelligent and technically literate. He is not merely handwaving. He is attempting to build a fully connected physical system where:​

​

• comets,
• lunar orbit changes,
• meteorites,
• asteroid origins,
• and flood chronology

all emerge from one unified event.​

​

That gives the theory explanatory ambition and internal coherence.​

​

The problem is that internal coherence alone does not establish physical plausibility.​

​

A system can be mathematically self-consistent while still being physically unrealistic. That is where most mainstream physicists and astronomers would strongly object to this model.​

​

​

 

[Right Divider]

The amount of energy required for this is almost incomprehensible.

That's a vague claim.

We are talking about energies rivaling or exceeding major planetary formation-scale events.

Please explain this idea of "major planetary formation-scale events".

 

[Right Divider]

That is where most mainstream physicists and astronomers would strongly object to this model.

Most mainstream physicists and astronomers believe that nothing created everything. I wouldn't follow what they say about much of "science".

 

[JudgeRightly]

The equation is being pushed far outside the physical regime where it behaves realistically.

Realistically according to which model? Based on what it said below, it seems to be critical of the arguments from within the framework of a naturalistic theory of origins, and not from a biblical one.

At those energies:

• ionization,
• plasma effects,
• radiative heating,
• shock interactions,
• turbulence,
• phase transitions,
• molecular dissociation,
• and non-equilibrium thermodynamics

all become dominant.

In other words, the equation itself is real, but the application is deeply questionable.

Questionable, how? Sneaky naturalistic theory lense here.

And most, if not all, of those things are accounted for elsewhere, as far as I'm aware...

1. Before the Flood, the Moon had a perfectly circular orbit.

He posed the question, certainly, but did he actually state this as an assumption?

The amount of energy required for this is almost incomprehensible.

It's certainly mind boggling. But so is the scale of many things in our universe.

We are talking about energies rivaling or exceeding major planetary formation-scale events.

That sounds like it's comparing the numbers to a naturalistic model and finding fault because it doesn't match.

At that level:

• Earth’s crust would not remain remotely intact,

Duh. But that's at the ejection sites.

That's part of the model. The crust was, indeed eroded away by the fountains.

And as it was eroded, the gap (the "nozzle") widened, the amount of fluid beneath the crust depleted, and as a result, the flow lessened over time, until the fountains did not push material or fluid above the surface of the water.

[*]oceans would vaporize globally,

Based on what evidence? You can hold your hands up vertically a centimeter or two away from a bunsen burner flame and not get burnt, and the fountains were cold, not hot.

[*]the atmosphere would become plasma-like,

Based on what evidence? Again, refer to the bunsen burner.

[*]and the thermal consequences would be catastrophic far beyond what the model discusses.

Well, yeah, it was literally a catastrophe.

 

[Nick M]

I don't need earth water in our solar system to know the water was under the crust. It erupted causing the flood.

 

[Clete]

That's a vague claim.

Please explain this idea of "major planetary formation-scale events".

I'm pretty sure the point is that the amount of energy involved is well beyond anything that is plausible.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm pretty sure the point is that the amount of energy involved is well beyond anything that is plausible.

Again... a vague claim.

 

[Clete]

Again... a vague claim.

No it isn't vague. You're talking about energies and speeds that wouldn't just rip molecules apart but rip the electrons off the atoms. If Haley's comet came from Earth.

 

[Right Divider]

No it isn't vague. You're talking about energies and speeds that wouldn't just rip molecules apart but rip the electrons off the atoms. If Haley's comet came from Earth.

Comets and asteroids (among others) all exhibit numerous indications that they came from Earth.

 

[Clete]

Comets and asteroids (among others) all exhibit numerous indications that they came from Earth.

I failed to finish my thought on that last post but it doesn't matter.

I do not deny that there is an argument to be made, it simply falls far short of proof. It, in fact, falls short of even being convincing, if you ask me. Obliterating large quantities of the Earth into ionized gas, doesn't a comet make, much less millions of asteroids and Pluto!

It's a nice idea but at the end of the day, its a solution looking for a problem to solve. It's just as easy to accept that comets and asteroids were just part of God's creation. There is no need to suppose that they're left overs from Noah's Flood.

 

[Right Divider]

I do not deny that there is an argument to be made, it simply falls far short of proof. It, in fact, falls short of even being convincing, if you ask me.

What convinces you is not the question.

I am convinced... so there's that.

Obliterating large quantities of the Earth into ionized gas, doesn't a comet make, much less millions of asteroids and Pluto!

There was no "Obliterating large quantities of the Earth into ionized gas". That is just you making up a story without evidence.

It's a nice idea but at the end of the day, its a solution looking for a problem to solve.

No, it's a consequence of the entire process.

It's just as easy to accept that comets and asteroids were just part of God's creation.

No, it's not. That is a total fabrication without even the tiniest bit of evidence.

Anyone can just say "God did it such and such way", when they need no support for the idea.

A huge amount of debris roaming the solar system does not agree with God's "very good" creation.

There is no need to suppose that they're left overs from Noah's Flood.

Who says that "there is a need"? You are just making up a story without any factual support whatsoever.

A great deal of Dr. Brown's book is the explanation of all of the aftermath's of the initial release of the massive super-critically heated water trapped below the crust of the earth. If Dr. Brown is SOOOO very wrong about this aspect of his theory, I see no reason why you should accept the rest. I mean, that is a HUGE blunder on his part (if you are correct, and you're not). How can you think that the rest of his theory is correct with such a glaring mistake spread out over many, many pages of his book?

 

[Clete]

What convinces you is not the question.

I am convinced... so there's that.

There was no "Obliterating large quantities of the Earth into ionized gas". That is just you making up a story without evidence.

You know better.

Instantly (nearly so) accelerating anything to 160 times the speed of sound would, by itself, rip the molecules into ions, never mind doing so through Earth's atmosphere.

No, it's a consequence of the entire process.

No it isn't. There is no logical necessity for any of this part of the theory.

No, it's not. That is a total fabrication without even the tiniest bit of evidence.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The simple fact is that I do not need the hydroplate theory to explain the existence of Haley's comet or any other celestial body.

Anyone can just say "God did it such and such way", when they need no support for the idea.

No they don't. The underlying premise is not in dispute. God did, in fact, create the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. If it exists, God created it. That is a fundamental presupposition of the Christian worldview. Which is to say that if one questions that, they are not doing so from within a Christian paradigm. Haley's Comet, exists as a part of the created order. Therefore, God created it. That doesn't prove or even argument whether it was created during the flood, but it doesn't have to be. I am not the one here making an affirmative case and so the burden is not on me to disprove the hydroplate theory as if Haley's Comet (or any other celestial body) presents a problem for my worldview that needs solving.

A huge amount of debris roaming the solar system does not agree with God's "very good" creation.

So says you.

Who says that "there is a need"? You are just making up a story without any factual support whatsoever.

I'm not making anything up. Asteroids do exist. That's all I need know. If a theory wants to suggest an origin story for asteroids, comets and Pluto, then the burden of proof is on the theory, not me!

A great deal of Dr. Brown's book is the explanation of all of the aftermath's of the initial release of the massive super-critically heated water trapped below the crust of the earth. If Dr. Brown is SOOOO very wrong about this aspect of his theory, I see no reason why you should accept the rest.

I agree. Let's reject it all until a better argument is presented. (Sarcasm, but the actual logical conclusion of your comment.)

I mean, that is a HUGE blunder on his part (if you are correct, and you're not). How can you think that the rest of his theory is correct with such a glaring mistake spread out over many, many pages of his book?

The size and number of pages committed to this section of the theory is not relevant to whether it is correct. I can accept the idea that a great deal of water was present under Earth's crust and was released as the source of Noah's flood waters and I can do so without any need to use that as an explanation for the existence of comets, asteroids and the planet Pluto.

It's no different, in principle, than excepting portions of Plasma cosmology without having to believe that the Sun and powered by electricity or that the pyramids were created with lost knowledge of electrical forces or that Mars and Venus and Saturn all electrically interacted with each other and was witnessed by ancient peoples. The EUT people see electricity behind every bush, and, in a similar, but far less egregious manner, Brown, I think, stretched a bit passed his reach on this aspect of his theory.

 

[Right Divider]

You know better.

Instantly (nearly so) accelerating anything to 160 times the speed of sound would, by itself, rip the molecules into ions, never mind doing so through Earth's atmosphere.

I have already explained this many times. The energy release was NOT "instantly"... nor even "nearly so". You are completely ignoring much of his explanation and the nature of SUPER-CRITICAL WATER (I believe that is why JR directed you to those pages in the book). When released from containment, super-critical water expands continuously and NOT instantly. Is it practically the ideal type of acceleration required for the ejection of these materials from the earth.

No it isn't. There is no logical necessity for any of this part of the theory.

Again, you keep talking about "necessities". It's simply the resulting effects of the release of SUPER-CRITICAL WATER.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The simple fact is that I do not need the hydroplate theory to explain the existence of Haley's comet or any other celestial body.

We don't "need" any facts. Dr. Brown's explanation of the entire package is fully consistent with the law of physics. Dr. Brown has made many predictions about the nature of comets and asteroids and those predictions have been confirmed by ongoing observations.

No they don't. The underlying premise is not in dispute. God did, in fact, create the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. If it exists, God created it.

That does not prove that God created them IN THEIR CURRENT CONDITION.

All of these "mavericks" of the solar system clearly show chaos and destruction and not a perfect creation.

That is a fundamental presupposition of the Christian worldview.

That God created asteroids and comets in those first six days? Come on Clete.

Which is to say that if one questions that, they are not doing so from within a Christian paradigm. Haley's Comet, exists as a part of the created order.

You are just continuing to make stuff up. You have no evidence that Haley's Comet was created in the six days of Creation. That is just what you want to claim.... without a shred of evidence.

Therefore, God created it.

NOT in its CURRENT form. Why is this hard for you to understand?

So says you.

Indeed I do... the asteroid belt clearly shows some sort of destruction has occurred for something at some point in time. This is why secular scientists believed (at least at one point in time) that it was the remnant of another planet that had a collision or something like that. It is clearly DEBRIS.

I'm not making anything up. Asteroids do exist.

Yes, asteroids exist. Alert the press.

That's all I need know. If a theory wants to suggest an origin story for asteroids, comets and Pluto, then the burden of proof is on the theory, not me!

And Dr. Brown makes a far more reasonable argument than you do about where they came from.

How can anyone refute your claim that "God just created it that way"? That is an unfalsifiable claim.

I agree. Let's reject it all until a better argument is presented. (Sarcasm, but the actual logical conclusion of your comment.)

That seems like a far more consistent view than your current one.

Does not this HUGE BLUNDER cast doubt on the rest of the theory?

The size and number of pages committed to this section of the theory is not relevant to whether it is correct.

I never claimed that it did... but Dr. Brown spent a great deal of time and effort to create his entire theory. If that ONE aspect is SO completely INCORRECT, why accept the rest?

I can accept the idea that a great deal of water was present under Earth's crust and was released as the source of Noah's flood waters and I can do so without any need to use that as an explanation for the existence of comets, asteroids and the planet Pluto.

Again, it is part and parcel of the entire theory. It is the consequence of the initial conditions played out.

It's no different, in principle, than excepting portions of Plasma cosmology without having to believe that the Sun and powered by electricity or that the pyramids were created with lost knowledge of electrical forces or that Mars and Venus and Saturn all electrically interacted with each other and was witnessed by ancient peoples. The EUT people see electricity behind every bush, and, in a similar, but far less egregious manner, Brown, I think, stretched a bit passed his reach on this aspect of his theory.

And you reject that aspect of the theory because you find it implausible... but that does NOT refute the idea. You confirm your bias with an AI chatbot. And you get unbelievers that already reject the entire theory from the beginning to help you support your version.

Again, you are completely missing the nature of SUPER-CRITICAL WATER. That is why you constantly go back to this INSTANT (or nearly so) release of energy. That is NOT how it worked.

What if you had a 100 billion gallons of super-critical water and you released it at sea level... How long would it continue to expand?

Releasing 100 billion gallons of supercritical water at sea level triggers an immediate, catastrophic explosion. Supercritical water exists at a temperature above 374°C and a pressure above 218 atmospheres, where it is compressed to a liquid-like density while retaining gas-like properties.
When you release this volume into the open atmosphere at sea level (1 atmosphere of pressure), it undergoes rapid flash evaporation. The expansion occurs in three distinct phases over different timeframes.

---

Phase 1: Explosive Pressure Equalization (0 to 15 Seconds)​

The moment you release the water, the pressure drops instantly from over 218 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere. This extreme pressure differential drives a violent, supersonic shockwave outward.

• The Mechanism: The superheated water flashes into steam. Liquid water expanding into ambient steam increases its volume by a factor of roughly 1,600. Because your water starts at over 374°C, thermal expansion increases this volume even further, causing the substance to expand to over 3,000 times its original compressed volume.
• The Scale: The expanding steam cloud generates a supersonic wavefront traveling initially at several thousand meters per second before slowing to the speed of sound. Within 12 to 15 seconds, the core pressure of the cloud equalizes with the surrounding atmosphere. By the end of this phase, the blast wave creates a hot steam bubble with a radius of roughly 6.4 kilometers (4 miles).

---

Phase 2: Buoyant Ascent and Atmospheric Expansion (15 Seconds to 5 Minutes)​

Once the pressure equalizes with the sea-level atmosphere, mechanical expansion stops, but thermal and buoyancy-driven expansion begins immediately.

• The Mechanism: Your 374°C steam cloud is significantly less dense than the surrounding cool air. This density difference forces the entire mass to rush upward at speeds between 50 and 100 meters per second, forming a massive mushroom cloud.
• The Scale: As the cloud climbs, the surrounding atmospheric pressure drops. At an altitude of 12 kilometers (roughly 39,000 feet), the atmospheric pressure is only about 20% of what it is at sea level. This drop in external pressure forces the rising steam cloud to expand by an additional factor of five. This vertical and lateral expansion continues for 3 to 5 minutes until the plume hits the stratosphere.

---

Phase 3: Lateral Dispersion and Dissipation (5 Minutes to Hours)​

The expansion changes direction once the cloud reaches the stratosphere, where the surrounding air density matches the density of the cooling steam.

• The Mechanism: Vertical expansion ceases because the cloud loses its buoyancy. High-altitude winds then take over, shearing the top of the plume and driving horizontal expansion.
• The Scale: The cloud ceases its explosive growth and begins to spread outward thin, covering thousands of square kilometers. It continues to expand laterally for several hours until the steam mixes completely with the upper atmosphere, cools, and condenses into ice crystals and torrential rain.

---

Expansion Timeline Summary​

Phase	Timeframe	Expansion Mechanism	Resulting Scale
1. Explosive Blast	0 – 15 seconds	Pressure drop from 218+ atm to 1 atm; instant flashing to steam.	Creates a ball of hot steam roughly 6.4 kilometers in radius.
2. Buoyant Ascent	15 seconds – 5 minutes	Convective lift; cloud expands as ambient atmospheric pressure drops at high altitudes.	Plume expands fivefold vertically and hitches to a height of 12+ kilometers.
3. Dispersion	5 minutes – several hours	Horizontal wind advection and atmospheric mixing.	Plume flattens and spreads laterally over thousands of square kilometers until it dissipates.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Releasing 100 billion gallons of supercritical water at sea level triggers an immediate, catastrophic explosion. Supercritical water exists at a temperature above 374°C and a pressure above 218 atmospheres, where it is compressed to a liquid-like density while retaining gas-like properties.
When you release this volume into the open atmosphere at sea level (1 atmosphere of pressure), it undergoes rapid flash evaporation. The expansion occurs in three distinct phases over different timeframes.

---

Phase 1: Explosive Pressure Equalization (0 to 15 Seconds)​

The moment you release the water, the pressure drops instantly from over 218 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere. This extreme pressure differential drives a violent, supersonic shockwave outward.

• The Mechanism: The superheated water flashes into steam. Liquid water expanding into ambient steam increases its volume by a factor of roughly 1,600. Because your water starts at over 374°C, thermal expansion increases this volume even further, causing the substance to expand to over 3,000 times its original compressed volume.
• The Scale: The expanding steam cloud generates a supersonic wavefront traveling initially at several thousand meters per second before slowing to the speed of sound. Within 12 to 15 seconds, the core pressure of the cloud equalizes with the surrounding atmosphere. By the end of this phase, the blast wave creates a hot steam bubble with a radius of roughly 6.4 kilometers (4 miles).

---

Phase 2: Buoyant Ascent and Atmospheric Expansion (15 Seconds to 5 Minutes)​

Once the pressure equalizes with the sea-level atmosphere, mechanical expansion stops, but thermal and buoyancy-driven expansion begins immediately.

• The Mechanism: Your 374°C steam cloud is significantly less dense than the surrounding cool air. This density difference forces the entire mass to rush upward at speeds between 50 and 100 meters per second, forming a massive mushroom cloud.
• The Scale: As the cloud climbs, the surrounding atmospheric pressure drops. At an altitude of 12 kilometers (roughly 39,000 feet), the atmospheric pressure is only about 20% of what it is at sea level. This drop in external pressure forces the rising steam cloud to expand by an additional factor of five. This vertical and lateral expansion continues for 3 to 5 minutes until the plume hits the stratosphere.

---

Phase 3: Lateral Dispersion and Dissipation (5 Minutes to Hours)​

The expansion changes direction once the cloud reaches the stratosphere, where the surrounding air density matches the density of the cooling steam.

• The Mechanism: Vertical expansion ceases because the cloud loses its buoyancy. High-altitude winds then take over, shearing the top of the plume and driving horizontal expansion.
• The Scale: The cloud ceases its explosive growth and begins to spread outward thin, covering thousands of square kilometers. It continues to expand laterally for several hours until the steam mixes completely with the upper atmosphere, cools, and condenses into ice crystals and torrential rain.

---

Expansion Timeline Summary​

Phase	Timeframe	Expansion Mechanism	Resulting Scale
1. Explosive Blast	0 – 15 seconds	Pressure drop from 218+ atm to 1 atm; instant flashing to steam.	Creates a ball of hot steam roughly 6.4 kilometers in radius.
2. Buoyant Ascent	15 seconds – 5 minutes	Convective lift; cloud expands as ambient atmospheric pressure drops at high altitudes.	Plume expands fivefold vertically and hitches to a height of 12+ kilometers.
3. Dispersion	5 minutes – several hours	Horizontal wind advection and atmospheric mixing.	Plume flattens and spreads laterally over thousands of square kilometers until it dissipates.

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that, as per the HPT estimates, it would have to travel vertically through a 60 mile deep crack in the crust.

And as has been pointed out multiple times, directed energy DOES NOT easily change direction, and boundary conditions, rather than total amount of heat, determine how much will transfer to the atmosphere or ocean. (https://kgov.com/heat)



This idea that "the atmosphere would become plasma-like" simply ignores this fact, wrongly.

See pp. 403-404. @Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that, as per the HPT estimates, it would have to travel vertically through a 60 mile deep crack in the crust.

Indeed, my point was that the release of energy occurred over a significant period of time.