One on One: Stripe & genuineoriginal - The Hydroplate Theory

[Stripe]

The Grandstands thread - where anyone can air their views on this topic.

In this thread:
Stripe is willing to present and defend Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory as the most complete set of ideas defending a global flood model that explains the evidence we see.

This is not expected to be a debate so much as an investigation and explanation of the core ideas, but hopefully some disagreements do foster some new thinking on the subject.

My first post will be in a few hours and will present a broad explanation of the theory and the best evidence to support it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thank you for inviting me to this investigation into the Hydroplate Theory. I have a few ideas of my own on the condition of the earth at the time of the flood and the century afterward, and it will be interesting to see how well they mesh up with Dr. Brown's theory.

From what I have seen so far, the Hydroplate Theory might not hold water (pun intended).

 

[Stripe]

Thank you for inviting me to this investigation into the Hydroplate Theory. I have a few ideas of my own on the condition of the earth at the time of the flood and the century afterward, and it will be interesting to see how well they mesh up with Dr. Brown's theory. From what I have seen so far, the Hydroplate Theory might not hold water (pun intended).

Great!

Let's get it on! :box:

First things first - the Hydroplate Theory tries to hold true to what is laid out in the bible's creation account. So we can start in Genesis 1:

The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.​

What we see from this is that the Earth was created submerged in water. Then a firmament was created within that water. This is described with analogy to an orange. If you imagine the meat of the orange as the bulk of the Earth and the skin as the firmament (or Earth's crust) then you will have oceans both above the "skin" and below the "skin".

It's likely something changed at the fall to see this initial setup closed off somehow. That led to the buildup of pressure in the oceans below the "orange skin" crust of the Earth. The pressure led to a breach in the crust which sparked the flood:

Genesis 7
10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.​

So the assumptions for the Hydroplate Theory are pretty simple:

Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 3/4 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown ... but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the preflood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.

-source.​

With the rupture, one very vital aspect of the Earth changed significantly. That being it's sphericity. The Earth's sphericity is controlled by its gravity, as is the sphericity of all objects with enough mass to them. If something changes the shape of one of these objects, gravity will then work to make it spherical again.

When the "fountains of the great deep were broken up", this removed significant amounts of the Earth's created crust from what is now the Atlantic basin. What we see today is a great, water-covered hole in the Earth. Gravity then worked to fill in that hole to return the Earth to a more spherical shape. This reworking generated a bulge in the Atlantic. That bulge had to come from somewhere and it did. It came from below the Atlantic. Rock in the mantle below the Atlantic moved upward. Mass from the center of the Earth moved upward to fill that. Mass from the mantle below the Pacific (on the other side of the Earth) moved down to replace the mass lost at the center. And the Pacific subsided to replace the mass lost from below it.

The bulge on the Atlantic side created a ramp for the crust (the orange skin) to slide down. This slide was lubricated with escaping water from the "subterranean chambers". When the lubricant ran out and/or the sliding "hydroplate" met resistance, the plate buckled and folded to form mountain ranges.

That's a brief overview of what the Hydroplate Theory is about. Here is a list of the most compelling lines of evidence for accepting its validity:

Mid-Oceanic Ridge Earth’s Major Components Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Ice Age Major Mountain Ranges Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Strata and Layered Fossils Limestone Metamorphic Rock Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Comets Asteroids and Meteoroids

-source.​

I've bolded the evidences I like the best and removed a couple I don't think I can do justice to.

Do you see any obvious probems with what I have outlined here?

Would you like to talk about a couple of those lines of evidence?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Great!

Let's get it on! :box:

Ha ha. I won't go easy on you.

First things first - the Hydroplate Theory tries to hold true to what is laid out in the bible's creation account. So we can start in Genesis 1:

The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.​

What we see from this is that the Earth was created submerged in water. Then a firmament was created within that water. This is described with analogy to an orange. If you imagine the meat of the orange as the bulk of the Earth and the skin as the firmament (or Earth's crust) then you will have oceans both above the "skin" and below the "skin".

It does not look like the Hydroplate Theory is off to a good start.

Genesis 1:7-8 YLT 7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.​

The "firmament" is the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ which is best translated as "expanse" and comes from the Hebrew root word רָקַע which means to beat out flat or spread out. This "expanse" between the waters is called 'Heaven' which comes from the Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם which means air, sky, or atmosphere, and comes from an unused root meaning lofty.

So, the first problem with the Hydroplate Theory is that it mistranslates "firmament" as the crust of the earth in order to justify having water above and under the earth's crust.

It's likely something changed at the fall to see this initial setup closed off somehow. That led to the buildup of pressure in the oceans below the "orange skin" crust of the Earth. The pressure led to a breach in the crust which sparked the flood:

Genesis 7
10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.​

Since the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, then the question comes on where the water comes from. Scripture says that it came from 40 days and 40 nights of rain as well as from the fountains of the deep. The atmosphere cannot hold enough water vapor for 40 days and 40 nights of rain without being so dense that it could not support air-breathing animals, so the water that fell down as rain was being constantly introduced into the atmosphere during the time of the rainfall.

The other source of water is the "fountains of the great deep." "Fountain" is from the Hebrew word that is used for natural springs, wells, and other sources of water that comes from the earth, but in this phrase the fountain comes from the great "deep."
The "deep" is a word that usually refers to the open ocean or deep water, as opposed to a sea. (Genesis 1:2)

Psalm 104:5-6 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.​

From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.

So the assumptions for the Hydroplate Theory are pretty simple:

Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least 3/4 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown ... but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean. On the preflood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.

-source.​

That is a huge assumption.

With the rupture, one very vital aspect of the Earth changed significantly. That being it's sphericity. The Earth's sphericity is controlled by its gravity, as is the sphericity of all objects with enough mass to them. If something changes the shape of one of these objects, gravity will then work to make it spherical again.

When the "fountains of the great deep were broken up", this removed significant amounts of the Earth's created crust from what is now the Atlantic basin. What we see today is a great, water-covered hole in the Earth. Gravity then worked to fill in that hole to return the Earth to a more spherical shape. This reworking generated a bulge in the Atlantic. That bulge had to come from somewhere and it did. It came from below the Atlantic. Rock in the mantle below the Atlantic moved upward. Mass from the center of the Earth moved upward to fill that. Mass from the mantle below the Pacific (on the other side of the Earth) moved down to replace the mass lost at the center. And the Pacific subsided to replace the mass lost from below it.

The bulge on the Atlantic side created a ramp for the crust (the orange skin) to slide down. This slide was lubricated with escaping water from the "subterranean chambers". When the lubricant ran out and/or the sliding "hydroplate" met resistance, the plate buckled and folded to form mountain ranges.

That's a brief overview of what the Hydroplate Theory is about. Here is a list of the most compelling lines of evidence for accepting its validity:

Mid-Oceanic Ridge Earth’s Major Components Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Ice Age Major Mountain Ranges Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Strata and Layered Fossils Limestone Metamorphic Rock Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Comets Asteroids and Meteoroids

-source.​

I've bolded the evidences I like the best and removed a couple I don't think I can do justice to.

Do you see any obvious probems with what I have outlined here?

Would you like to talk about a couple of those lines of evidence?

I already mentioned the biggest problems with the theory, so why don't you start with one of the other major problems I can see, which is animal and human migration after the flood.

 

[Stripe]

Ha ha. I won't go easy on you.

Business as usual then.

It does not look like the Hydroplate Theory is off to a good start.

Genesis 1:7-8 YLT7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.​

The "firmament" is the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ which is best translated as "expanse" and comes from the Hebrew root word רָקַע which means to beat out flat or spread out. This "expanse" between the waters is called 'Heaven' which comes from the Hebrew word שָׁמַיִם which means air, sky, or atmosphere, and comes from an unused root meaning lofty.

Heaven can also mean "the abode of God".

So, the first problem with the Hydroplate Theory is that it mistranslates "firmament" as the crust of the earth in order to justify having water above and under the earth's crust.

How would a crust of the Earth, flat and stretched out within the ocean not fit the description you gave?

And God calling the place He intended to spend His time with people "Heaven" doesn't seem out of place to me.

Here is what Dr. Brown says about the "raqia".

Since the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, then the question comes on where the water comes from. Scripture says that it came from 40 days and 40 nights of rain as well as from the fountains of the deep. The atmosphere cannot hold enough water vapor for 40 days and 40 nights of rain without being so dense that it could not support air-breathing animals, so the water that fell down as rain was being constantly introduced into the atmosphere during the time of the rainfall.

The fountains fed the rainfall. When the fountains ceased, so did the rain. That's how the chronology works at both ends:

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 8
2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.​

The other source of water is the "fountains of the great deep." "Fountain" is from the Hebrew word that is used for natural springs, wells, and other sources of water that comes from the earth, but in this phrase the fountain comes from the great "deep." The "deep" is a word that usually refers to the open ocean or deep water, as opposed to a sea. (Genesis 1:2)

Psalm 104:5-6 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.​

From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.

I don't see why not. The great ocean you refer to was the water divided by the firmament in Genesis 1:6.

Genesis 1
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”​

Where do you think the waters were that were divided?

The Psalm is probably a double reference pointing both to Genesis 1 and to Genesis 9 (the promise of no repeat flood).

Psalm 104
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.​

The early Earth was completely underwater before Day 3 when the land was gathered together (gravity at work again - see images below). Most of the Psalm points to this idea. Then verse 9 is clearly a reference to Genesis 9 and the promise of no repeat flood.

Dry Land Appears. At the end of the first creation day, Day 1, water covered the entire earth. On Day 2, God made a “raqia” that sharply separated (“badal”) the liquid water (“mayim”) above from the liquid water below. On Day 3, land rose out of the surface water, in preparation for the creation of plants, animals, and humans. (Water thicknesses are exaggerated to illustrate events of Days 2 and 3. Dimensions are estimates.) Sequence is important. If the Sun and Moon, created on Day 4, had existed before pillars formed, the Sun’s and Moon’s powerful gravity would have greatly deformed the temporarily unstable crust. Pillars, the foundations of the earth, maintained stability. Recognizing that a large amount of water was under the preflood crust, as the Bible states, is essential to understanding the flood.

-source.​

That is a huge assumption.

Yep. It'll need some pretty compelling evidence to win folk over.

I already mentioned the biggest problems with the theory, so why don't you start with one of the other major problems I can see, which is animal and human migration after the flood.

That will be best explained by looking at more broad geophysical processes driven by the Earth's sphericity changes.

I'll post again shortly on that.

 

[Stripe]

From the account in Genesis, it appears that the water came mostly from the great ocean. The water rose above the mountains while also falling from the sky as rain. This does not match the Hydroplate Theory of pressure from an underground unseen ocean breaching the crust.

1. Large quantities of subterranean water existed in the ancient past. Psalm 24:2. ... He has founded it [the earth] upon the seas ... Psalm 33:7. ... He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses ... (A storehouse is a closed container that preserves something you may use later. God used that water when He brought it forth as a flood. Many storehouses, or interconnected chambers, held the subterranean water.) Psalm 104:3. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters ...7 [Pillars were formed.] Psalm 136:6. ... [He] spread out the earth above the waters ... II Peter 3:5. ... the earth was formed out of water and by water ...1 2. These subterranean waters, under growing and very extreme pressure, burst forth bringing on the flood. Genesis 7:11–12. ... the fountains of the great deep burst open,8 and the floodgates9 of the sky were opened. And rain fell ...10 Job 38:8–11. ... who enclosed the sea with doors, when bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment ... Psalm 18:15. ... the channels of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare ... Proverbs 3:20. ... the deeps were broken up and the skies dripped dew ...

-source.​

 

[Stripe]

Post-Flood Animal and Human Migration.

Relevant chapters from the online book:
Recovery Phase. Where did the water go?
How Was the Earth Divided in Peleg’s Day?
Why Did the Flood Water Drain So Slowly?

The explanation for how migration was possible post-flood is something I feel I understand well enough to believe viable, but it's rather difficult to explain. But I'll take a shot at it.

First, we should establish in our minds the model of the Earth we are working with - the "orange and orange skin" hydroplate model had a rocky and cold interior covered in water. Within that water was created a firmament - a layer of globe encircling rock (akin to the skin of the orange). This layer buckled downward and upward on Day 3 to gather the seas into one place and to produce dry land. Gravity drove this process.

Gravity also drove the post flood processes as the Earth prefers a more spherical shape and the flood explosion rendered the Earth significantly non-spherical. First, let's look a the interior of the Earth and consider its response to the flood.

The fountains of the great deep probably saw their first rupture somewhere in the mid to south Atlantic Ocean. The fountains carried away large amounts of rock from that area creating a gravitational imbalance. The Earth was rendered significantly non-spherical. In response to this imbalance, mass began to move into the hole created. But mass did not move from the side of the hole to fall into it and fill it up, it moved upward from beneath the hole. The cold rocky mantle beneath what would become the Atlantic Basin rose. Then the cold core of the Earth rose to ensure no void was left above it. Then the cold mantle below what would become the Pacific Basin sank to ensure no void was left at the Earth's center. Finally the Pacific Basin subsided.

make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

This process not only affected the Earth, but the Moon also. You can see the great big holes carved into the near side of the Moon (filled with maria - lava).

And on the far side of the Moon, opposite the craters, a large depression (dark area near the south pole - the Aitken Basin).

Colour coded topographical map.

What this process created for the floodwaters was two great big depressions to flow into. When the fountains broke up the Earth became flooded completely. When the animated process above completed the waters drained from the Earth and Noah could leave the ark. For the next ~500 years the waters were all constrained largely to these two major basins. Thus if we go to Google Maps and look at ocean levels that are in light blue we can pretty much link up all of the land masses that needed repopulating.
Light blue ocean area would have been dry land for ~500 years after the flood (in Peleg's day) till the land sank into the mantle.
China to Taiwan.
Asia to Australia.
Australia to New Zealand.
Russia to Alaska.
Europe and the UK to the USA via Iceland/Greenland.
Equador to the Galapogas Islands.

The reason the water rose again is again because of gravity. The mountains and sediments deposited away from the ocean basins began sinking into the mantle (because the Earth prefers to be more spherical). So today we can see and feel the tail end of those forces reaching equilibrium.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Heaven can also mean "the abode of God".

How would a crust of the Earth, flat and stretched out within the ocean not fit the description you gave?

And God calling the place He intended to spend His time with people "Heaven" doesn't seem out of place to me.

Here is what Dr. Brown says about the "raqia".

Have another look at Genesis 1. See what kind of twisting needs to be done to make "firmament" and "heaven" mean the crust of the earth.

Genesis 1:1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.​

Genesis 1:8 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

Genesis 1:9 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.​

Genesis 1:14 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:​

Genesis 1:15 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.​

Genesis 1:17 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,​

Genesis 1:20 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

Genesis 1:26 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

Genesis 1:28 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​

Genesis 1:30 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.​

Dr. Brown is knowingly and deliberately making a semantic shift to justify his theory.
The context of the verses show that the "firmament" and "heaven" refered to in the story is the expanse of the sky. Even in his explanation he can't get around that definition, so he starts begging for an exception when "firmament" and "heaven" are used in Genesis 1:8-9.

Relying on an exception to the standard meanings of the words in Genesis 1 is not helping to establish the Hydroplate Theory.

The fountains fed the rainfall. When the fountains ceased, so did the rain. That's how the chronology works at both ends:

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 8
2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.​

I don't see why not. The great ocean you refer to was the water divided by the firmament in Genesis 1:6.

Genesis 1
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”​

Where do you think the waters were that were divided?

An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.

God claims that He has treasures of snow and hail reserved, that an abundance of waters are in the clouds like bottles in the sky.

Job 38:22-23,34,37 22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? 37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,​

God says He can shut up heaven so there is no rain.

2 Chronicles 7:13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;​

Yet, while God usually provides colorful phrases to describe things, He sometimes provides scientific explanations.

Job 36:27-28 27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: 28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.​

That is all I have time for now. I will be back.

 

[Stripe]

Have another look at Genesis 1. See what kind of twisting needs to be done to make "firmament" and "heaven" mean the crust of the earth.

Dr. Brown's explanation (in the context of challenging canopy theory).

Genesis 1
The History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (singular). So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens (plural, distinct from the firmament called Heaven and probably including the newly made Heaven) be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (a completely new phrasing, and a completely different firmament) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

There is more than one heaven in the bible (2 Corinthians 12:2), Heaven on Earth is a biblical term (Deuteronomy 11:21 - hat tip to chickenman) and, according to Dr. Brown's ideas, there is more than one firmament. I don't find the concepts too much of a stretch and they have the advantage of supporting some great lines of physical evidence.

If we were allowed to reword Genesis 1 we might say:

In the beginning God created the universe. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be a crust in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters". Thus God made the crust, and divided the waters which were under the crust from the waters which were above the crust; and it was so. And God called the crust Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Then God said, “Let the waters under the sky and crust be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the sky to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the sky to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The context of the verses show that the "firmament" and "heaven" refered to in the story is the expanse of the sky. Even in his explanation he can't get around that definition, so he starts begging for an exception when "firmament" and "heaven" are used in Genesis 1:8-9.

The firmament created on day 2 was formed within and dividing water.

Where do you think that water was?

Relying on an exception to the standard meanings of the words in Genesis 1 is not helping to establish the Hydroplate Theory.

Even if the hydroplate model is not explicitly supported by scripture, it is not undermined by it.

An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.

So you do not believe the description is one of historical, physical reality?



- - - - - - - - -
The Grandstands thread - where anyone can air their views on this topic.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Genesis 1
The History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (singular). So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens (plural, distinct from the firmament called Heaven and probably including the newly made Heaven) be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens (a completely new phrasing, and a completely different firmament) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.​

Even if the hydroplate model is not explicitly supported by scripture, it is not undermined by it.

It looks like we both agree that the translation used by Dr. Brown requires abandoning a plain reading of the Genesis account and subsituting in alternate definitions of the words for expanse and sky as needed to support the Hydroplate Theory.

I tend to apply Occam's Razor to interpreting the Bible, and the simplest explanation is generally the best. I am not convinced that going to the lengths Dr. Brown did to redefine the terms used is doing any favors for the Hydroplate Theory, in fact it reminds me of this.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and see whether there is any scientific justification for the theory.

The firmament created on day 2 was formed within and dividing water.

Where do you think that water was?

An objective look at the Genesis account would answer that question by claiming that primitive tribes could see that the sky is blue like the ocean and water comes from the sky, so the account is merely an explanation that the blue in the sky is another ocean above the sky where rain comes from.

So you do not believe the description is one of historical, physical reality?

No, I believe that God is able to provide an explanation that can satisfy a child questioning why the sky is blue as well as explaining what He did.

God claims He separated the water above the expanse from the water below the expanse. Two interpretations of that statement led to the Canopy Theory and the Hydroplate Theory. I believe there is a simpler explanation.

If there was a lot of water on the Earth and God separated the water with the sky, then there is water under the sky and water above the sky. Above the sky is the cold of outer space, which would freeze the water into ice. Scientific explorations of comets have discoverd that the composition of the water in them is similar to the composition of the water on earth, and have discovered regions of large chunks of ice surrounding the solar system (Kuiper belt and scattered disk) that are thought to be the source of the ice comets.

This matches another of the accounts in the Bible

Job 38:22-23 22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Post-Flood Animal and Human Migration.

Relevant chapters from the online book:
Recovery Phase. Where did the water go?
How Was the Earth Divided in Peleg’s Day?
Why Did the Flood Water Drain So Slowly?

The explanation for how migration was possible post-flood is something I feel I understand well enough to believe viable, but it's rather difficult to explain. But I'll take a shot at it.

First, we should establish in our minds the model of the Earth we are working with - the "orange and orange skin" hydroplate model had a rocky and cold interior covered in water. Within that water was created a firmament - a layer of globe encircling rock (akin to the skin of the orange). This layer buckled downward and upward on Day 3 to gather the seas into one place and to produce dry land. Gravity drove this process.

Gravity also drove the post flood processes as the Earth prefers a more spherical shape and the flood explosion rendered the Earth significantly non-spherical. First, let's look a the interior of the Earth and consider its response to the flood.

The fountains of the great deep probably saw their first rupture somewhere in the mid to south Atlantic Ocean. The fountains carried away large amounts of rock from that area creating a gravitational imbalance. The Earth was rendered significantly non-spherical. In response to this imbalance, mass began to move into the hole created. But mass did not move from the side of the hole to fall into it and fill it up, it moved upward from beneath the hole. The cold rocky mantle beneath what would become the Atlantic Basin rose. Then the cold core of the Earth rose to ensure no void was left above it. Then the cold mantle below what would become the Pacific Basin sank to ensure no void was left at the Earth's center. Finally the Pacific Basin subsided.

make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

This process not only affected the Earth, but the Moon also. You can see the great big holes carved into the near side of the Moon (filled with maria - lava).

And on the far side of the Moon, opposite the craters, a large depression (dark area near the south pole - the Aitken Basin).

Colour coded topographical map.

What this process created for the floodwaters was two great big depressions to flow into. When the fountains broke up the Earth became flooded completely. When the animated process above completed the waters drained from the Earth and Noah could leave the ark. For the next ~500 years the waters were all constrained largely to these two major basins. Thus if we go to Google Maps and look at ocean levels that are in light blue we can pretty much link up all of the land masses that needed repopulating.
Light blue ocean area would have been dry land for ~500 years after the flood (in Peleg's day) till the land sank into the mantle.
China to Taiwan.
Asia to Australia.
Australia to New Zealand.
Russia to Alaska.
Europe and the UK to the USA via Iceland/Greenland.
Equador to the Galapogas Islands.

The reason the water rose again is again because of gravity. The mountains and sediments deposited away from the ocean basins began sinking into the mantle (because the Earth prefers to be more spherical). So today we can see and feel the tail end of those forces reaching equilibrium.

I see some problems with this explanation as well.

The initial assumption is that there was a lot more water under the earth's crust than above it, a crack formed that released superheated high pressure saltwater under the ocean, which blasted megatons of the earth's crust into outer space splattering the moon and creating meteors, asteroids, and comets. Somehow the high pressure water under the crust escaped in a controlled fashion that did not deflate the crust but instead took a strip out of the middle of the continent that was about a sixth of the continental mass (rough guess based on Dr. Brown's image) in what we now call the Atlantic Ocean. This extra water rained down on the earth and raised the ocean levels, but quickly formed into a large sheet of ice covering much of the northern and southern hemispheres. Some of the water returned into the still-intact subterranean caverns that initially held the superheated high pressure salt water, allowing the continents to remain above the water afterwards.

I am not trying to create a strawman argument to tear down, but am trying to condense dozens of pages from Dr. Brown's book into a concise statement.

I see a problem with the idea that tidal pumping increased the pressure on the water under the crust. The deformation of the crust during the tidal pumping would have created an equilibrium in the pressure as the crust was hammered thinner from the inside instead of increasing the pressure on the water. His explanation seems to be the opposite of what physics would suggest should happen. As I see it, anything that could cause the "pillars" of the earth to stretch as much as depicted would also be able to stretch the crust enough to relieve much of the pressure.

 

[Stripe]

It looks like we both agree that the translation used by Dr. Brown requires abandoning a plain reading of the Genesis account and subsituting in alternate definitions of the words for expanse and sky as needed to support the Hydroplate Theory.

No, we don't agree on that.

I tend to apply Occam's Razor to interpreting the Bible, and the simplest explanation is generally the best. I am not convinced that going to the lengths Dr. Brown did to redefine the terms used is doing any favors for the Hydroplate Theory, in fact it reminds me of this.

"Raqia" is not explicitly defined in scripture. Its translation into "firmament" is valid. We just need to understand what that term refers to. Same with "shamayim" into "heaven". That there are multiple heavens provides a little complexity. That there might be multiple firmaments should confuse things more, but to me the alternate translation I provided seems pretty clear and simple.

And locking away half the ocean below the firmament provides a source for the fountains of the great deep.

What water do you think sourced the fountains of the great deep?

Let's just agree to disagree on this point, and see whether there is any scientific justification for the theory.

I hope you'll come to see it my way.

The lines of evidence I am eager to discuss are in my second post:

Mid-Oceanic Ridge Earth’s Major Components Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Ice Age Major Mountain Ranges Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Strata and Layered Fossils Limestone Metamorphic Rock Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Comets Asteroids and Meteoroids

The initial assumption is that there was a lot more water under the earth's crust than above it

About equal.

a crack formed that released superheated high pressure saltwater under the ocean, which blasted megatons of the earth's crust into outer space splattering the moon and creating meteors, asteroids, and comets.

Yep.

Somehow the high pressure water under the crust escaped in a controlled fashion that did not deflate the crust but instead took a strip out of the middle of the continent that was about a sixth of the continental mass (rough guess based on Dr. Brown's image) in what we now call the Atlantic Ocean.

Like a balloon rupturing, the crack that formed split around the globe.

Some of the water returned into the still-intact subterranean caverns that initially held the superheated high pressure salt water, allowing the continents to remain above the water afterwards.

The continents only remain above water that did not escape. Water cannot work against the pressure gradient inside the Earth to penetrate very deep. We see water venting from the Earth through geothermal and volcanic activity. That water cannot be then replaced with more water (unless it was heated at a very shallow depth).

I see a problem with the idea that tidal pumping increased the pressure on the water under the crust. The deformation of the crust during the tidal pumping would have created an equilibrium in the pressure as the crust was hammered thinner from the inside instead of increasing the pressure on the water. His explanation seems to be the opposite of what physics would expect to happen.

It didn't increase the pressure directly. It increased the temperature.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, we don't agree on that.

"Raqia" is not explicitly defined in scripture. Its translation into "firmament" is valid. We just need to understand what that term refers to. Same with "shamayim" into "heaven". That there are multiple heavens provides a little complexity. That there might be multiple firmaments should confuse things more, but to me the alternate translation I provided seems pretty clear and simple.

To you it does, but I am never happy with any attempt at translating the Hebrew or Greek in the Bible where the translator takes the same word used in one passage and translates it in a vastly different manner in the following passage, which is what Dr. Brown is doing. A consistant translation has the birds flying in the middle of the crust of the earth or has the expanse as the sky. Since Hebrew words can often mean different things, the Hebrew phrases used are often redundant in order to reinforce the appropriate meaning to use. In the case of Genesis 1, the redundancy reinforces an interpretation of expanse and sky instead of selectively interpreting crust and God's abode.

And locking away half the ocean below the firmament provides a source for the fountains of the great deep.

What water do you think sourced the fountains of the great deep?

I believe that the extra water came from the snow and hail that God has reserved for the day of battle and war (Job 38:22-23). The snow and hail are stored in comets. Here is an example, though the scientists quoted don't believe in a Young Earth.

Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
a newly discovered crater, 18 miles in diameter, lies 12,500 feet below the surface.
The explanation is obvious to some scientists. A large asteroid or comet, the kind that could kill a quarter of the world’s population, smashed into the Indian Ocean 4,800 years ago, producing a tsunami at least 600 feet high, about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Indonesia nearly two years ago. The wave carried the huge deposits of sediment to land.
...
Dr. Masse analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C.
Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami.​

The ice comets would heat up as they entered the atmosphere, releasing water vapor into the sky that would push it past the precipitation point and cause it to rain, when the comet heads struck the oceans, they would cause massive explosions and vaporize, releasing even more water vapor into the sky and the explosions would cause tsunamis that would wash over the continent. The additional water that was added to the earth would cover the land.

The lines of evidence I am eager to discuss are in my second post:

Mid-Oceanic Ridge Earth’s Major Components Oceanic Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Ice Age Major Mountain Ranges Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Strata and Layered Fossils Limestone Metamorphic Rock Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Comets Asteroids and Meteoroids

Which one or ones do you think are the most compelling lines of evidence and how would it be able to overcome my prior objections?

 

[Stripe]

I believe that the extra water came from the snow and hail that God has reserved for the day of battle and war (Job 38:22-23). The snow and hail are stored in comets. Here is an example, though the scientists quoted don't believe in a Young Earth.

Ancient Crash, Epic Wave
a newly discovered crater, 18 miles in diameter, lies 12,500 feet below the surface.
The explanation is obvious to some scientists. A large asteroid or comet, the kind that could kill a quarter of the world’s population, smashed into the Indian Ocean 4,800 years ago, producing a tsunami at least 600 feet high, about 13 times as big as the one that inundated Indonesia nearly two years ago. The wave carried the huge deposits of sediment to land.
...
Dr. Masse analyzed 175 flood myths from around the world, and tried to relate them to known and accurately dated natural events like solar eclipses and volcanic eruptions. Among other evidence, he said, 14 flood myths specifically mention a full solar eclipse, which could have been the one that occurred in May 2807 B.C.
Half the myths talk of a torrential downpour, Dr. Masse said. A third talk of a tsunami. Worldwide they describe hurricane force winds and darkness during the storm. All of these could come from a mega-tsunami.​

The ice comets would heat up as they entered the atmosphere, releasing water vapor into the sky that would push it past the precipitation point and cause it to rain, when the comet heads struck the oceans, they would cause massive explosions and vaporize, releasing even more water vapor into the sky and the explosions would cause tsunamis that would wash over the continent. The additional water that was added to the earth would cover the land.

That's a lot of comets in order to cover even the smallest of hills and to flood the Earth for a year...

And even a 200m tsunami woul not encroach significantly upon the continents. In order to flood the planet, you need to dramatically alter its sphericity.

And the biggest challenge to your comet idea...

Where did the water go?

And do you really think comets are the best explanation for a great set of fountains?

Which one or ones do you think are the most compelling lines of evidence and how would it be able to overcome my prior objections?

I bolded the ones I'm most keen on in my second post:
Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids.

But feel free to pick from any geophysical aspect of the Earth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is what others think of the idea of the flood being caused by a comet:

Was Noah’s Flood a tsunami caused by a comet impact?

Rather than confirming the historicity of Noah’s Flood, ‘Noah’s comet’ contradicts the biblical data, at best explains only a local flood and overlooks the clear geological evidence for the truly global Flood.​

I bolded the ones I'm most keen on in my second post:
Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids.

But feel free to pick from any geophysical aspect of the Earth.

Start with the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Dr. Brown's demonstration on that made me laugh.

 

[Stripe]

Here is what others think of the idea of the flood being caused by a comet:

Was Noah’s Flood a tsunami caused by a comet impact?

Rather than confirming the historicity of Noah’s Flood, ‘Noah’s comet’ contradicts the biblical data, at best explains only a local flood and overlooks the clear geological evidence for the truly global Flood.​

So you don't think the comet explanation is any good?

Start with the Mid-Oceanic Ridge.

Relevant Chapter.

Do you know why the Earth is round?

Do you know what a complex crater is?

Complex craters are a type of large impact crater morphology. Above a certain threshold size, which varies with planetary gravity, the collapse and modification of the transient cavity is much more extensive, and the resulting structure is called a complex crater. The collapse of the transient cavity is driven by gravity, and involves both the uplift of the central region and the inward collapse of the rim. The central uplift is not the result of elastic rebound which is a process in which a material with elastic strength attempts to return to its original geometry; rather the collapse is a process in which a material with little or no strength attempts to return to a state of gravitational equilibrium

-source.​

-wiki.​

The reason the Earth is round and the reason we have complex craters is the same. It is because of gravity. Open pit mining operations face a hazard from the same process. When significant amounts of mass are removed from one spot, gravity will act to fill in the hole from below. In a single, circular hole that means a singular mound will be raised in the center (see image of complex crater above).

The fountains of the great deep did not form a single, circular hole. The pressure of the subterranean water caused a tear in the Earth's crust that circled the globe, much like when a balloon is popped. And I've learned something new:

The rupture did not begin in what is now the Atlantic as some people have thought. (It was the later upbuckling of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge that began in the Atlantic.) ...the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself only once (in the Indian Ocean). The end of the crack that passed south of what is now Africa must have reached that intersection after the other end of the crack had passed by that point as it traveled to the northwest. Therefore, if the rupture began anywhere between what is now the North Pole and Alaska, the two ends of the crack (traveling at the same speed) would have formed that intersection in the Indian Ocean.

-source.​

So the gravitational response of this removal of mass was not a single point of uplift, but a long chain of it.

Just going with the Mid Ocean Ridge (MOR) that we can "see" beneath the waves, we have ~50,000kms of mountain range circling the globe!

This startling feature demands an explanation. And what better explanation than simple gravity? Of course, one needs to assume that the mass was removed and one needs to provide a means for that removal. The assumption of subterranean oceans filled with very high pressure water provides this mechanism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Relevant Chapter.

Do you know why the Earth is round?

Do you know what a complex crater is?

Complex craters are a type of large impact crater morphology. Above a certain threshold size, which varies with planetary gravity, the collapse and modification of the transient cavity is much more extensive, and the resulting structure is called a complex crater. The collapse of the transient cavity is driven by gravity, and involves both the uplift of the central region and the inward collapse of the rim. The central uplift is not the result of elastic rebound which is a process in which a material with elastic strength attempts to return to its original geometry; rather the collapse is a process in which a material with little or no strength attempts to return to a state of gravitational equilibrium

-wiki.​

The reason the Earth is round and the reason we have complex craters is the same. It is because of gravity. Open pit mining operations face a hazard from the same process. When significant amounts of mass are removed from one spot, gravity will act to fill in the hole from below. In a single, circular hole that means a singular mound will be raised in the center (see image of complex crater above).

The fountains of the great deep did not form a single, circular hole. The pressure of the subterranean water caused a tear in the Earth's crust that circled the globe, much like when a balloon is popped.

The tear in a balloon is caused by the tension of the balloon.
There are ridges around the earth's crust, but they do not look anything like the results of a balloon bursting. The crust does not look like it peeled away from the crack like the skin of a balloon does when it is burst.
Instead the ridges look like the cracks in the skin of a tomato when it grows too quickly and the skin is no longer able to completely cover the insides.

And I've learned something new:

The rupture did not begin in what is now the Atlantic as some people have thought. (It was the later upbuckling of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge that began in the Atlantic.) ...the Mid-Oceanic Ridge intersects itself only once (in the Indian Ocean). The end of the crack that passed south of what is now Africa must have reached that intersection after the other end of the crack had passed by that point as it traveled to the northwest. Therefore, if the rupture began anywhere between what is now the North Pole and Alaska, the two ends of the crack (traveling at the same speed) would have formed that intersection in the Indian Ocean.

-source.​

So the gravitational response of this removal of mass was not a single point of uplift, but a long chain of it.

Just going with the Mid Ocean Ridge (MOR) that we can "see" beneath the waves, we have ~50,000kms of mountain range circling the globe!

This startling feature demands an explanation. And what better explanation than simple gravity? Of course, one needs to assume that the mass was removed and one needs to provide a means for that removal. The assumption of subterranean oceans filled with very high pressure water provides this mechanism.

Yes the startling feature demands an explanation, but I am not convinced that the explanation provided by Dr. Brown actually fits.

Mechanical and civil engineers call this phenomenon “the buckling of a plate on an elastic foundation.”57 I have often demonstrated this to audiences by placing long bricks on top of a foam mattress compressed in a rigid box. Then I slowly remove the bricks from the foam mattress, beginning at the center and moving outward. When enough bricks are removed, the mattress suddenly springs upward, raising the remaining bricks. If these bricks were on a frictionless surface, they would slide downhill, just as continents (hydroplates) did during the continental-drift phase. Although a void opens up under the upbuckled foam mattress, no void would open up deep inside the earth, because pressures are too great. Consequently, high-pressure rock from below would buckle up to fill the space. That would not leave a void farther down, because even deeper rock would be squeezed up to fill the space. Ultimately, mass from the opposite side of the earth must depress to compensate for the rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the entire Atlantic floor. Therefore, the Pacific and Indian Oceans rapidly formed. Evidence and details are given on pages 150–183.

Dr. Brown uses this demonstration where he has compressed a foam mattress along its length and put bricks on it in order to keep it in place. When he removes some of the bricks in the middle, the compression on the foam mattress causes it to rise in the middle.

If you look at the demonstration, you will notice that the air that was above the foam mattress is now under it, equalizing the pressure surrounding the foam mattress and allowing the compression to lift up the center. That does not match the rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, since it was filled up from beneath.

The second thing wrong with the demonstration is that the compression of the foam mattress is perpendicular to the rise in the middle, and is not caused by a compression in the opposite direction to the rise at the sides of a weakened area, like the ones that are in effect to produce complex craters.

The third thing wrong with the demonstration is the movement of the continents attributed to the rise. According to Dr. Brown, the same water that escaped from the layer between the crust and the mantle also provides the lubrication needed to allow the continents to slide away from the ridge. However, in real life simulations the high pressure water would escape much more rapidly than the gravitational effect could raise the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, meaning there would be no lubricating water for the continents to glide across. Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not show the height needed to push the continents laterally to their current locations.

Figure 62: Birth of Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

The graphics in Dr. Brown's book show the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rising without any compression happening to the theorized layer of water between the crust and the mantle. In the theory, the "10-mile-thick crust" atop the subterranean water is being shot up into the atmosphere and beyond by the pressure of the water, which is making a low pressure ridge that is being filled in by the gravitational effects from the magma layer. Dr. Brown seems to conviently forget about the pressures of the "10-mile-thick crust" and the ocean above the ridge during this process in his attempts to identify the effects of the pressure from the subterranean water.

Now, anyone that has attempted to bake cakes, breads, and muffins has seen the type of cracking that is shown in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge

The cracking is not caused by a lowering of pressure across the outside of the bread, but an increase of pressure from the inside of the bread.

In the same manner, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not show the terracing expected if the rise of the ridge was related to the rise found inside of complex craters. Instead, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge shows the kind of rise expected from an increase of pressure in the magma of the earth which splits the crust of the earth like a ripe tomato.

 

[Stripe]

The tear in a balloon is caused by the tension of the balloon.

Right. Air pressure from within stretched the plastic of the balloon to breaking at its weakest point. Similarly, water pressure within the Earth stretched the firmament to breaking at its weakest point.

There are ridges around the earth's crust, but they do not look anything like the results of a balloon bursting. The crust does not look like it peeled away from the crack like the skin of a balloon does when it is burst.

I'm not sure the analogy is meant to stretch that far or even what particular morphology you are referring to. But the edge of the tear in the firmament looks like this:

or this:

This is after the torn edge has hydroplaned away from the initial rupture and crashed to a stop. You can see the edges easily in Google Maps and follow their extent up and down each coast of the Atlantic Ocean. Elsewhere, they are discoverable in patches, but have been over-ridden by trenches or other features.

Instead the ridges look like the cracks in the skin of a tomato when it grows too quickly and the skin is no longer able to completely cover the insides.

Where are these ridges you speak of?

If you look at the demonstration, you will notice that the air that was above the foam mattress is now under it, equalizing the pressure surrounding the foam mattress and allowing the compression to lift up the center. That does not match the rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, since it was filled up from beneath.

As explained in his description:

Although a void opens up under the upbuckled foam mattress, no void would open up deep inside the earth, because pressures are too great. Consequently, high-pressure rock from below would buckle up to fill the space. That would not leave a void farther down, because even deeper rock would be squeezed up to fill the space. Ultimately, mass from the opposite side of the earth must depress to compensate for the rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the entire Atlantic floor.

-source.​

This process is what I attempted to show in my pretty animation from post 7:
make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

The second thing wrong with the demonstration is that the compression of the foam mattress is perpendicular to the rise in the middle, and is not caused by a compression in the opposite direction to the rise at the sides of a weakened area, like the ones that are in effect to produce complex craters.

The foam is compressed by the weight of the bricks upon it and complex craters are the result of uplift in response to gravitational imbalance. The weight at the sides of the crater, Dr. Brown's mattress experiment or the MOR is largely irrelevant to the explanation.

The third thing wrong with the demonstration is the movement of the continents attributed to the rise. According to Dr. Brown, the same water that escaped from the layer between the crust and the mantle also provides the lubrication needed to allow the continents to slide away from the ridge. However, in real life simulations the high pressure water would escape much more rapidly than the gravitational effect could raise the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, meaning there would be no lubricating water for the continents to glide across.

Fifteen minutes?

...studies also suggest that the central uplifts of structures 200–300 km in diameter, such as Vredefort (South Africa), formed in less than 15 minutes

(Melosh, 1989, pp. 141–142; Turtle and Pierazzo, 1998).​

And with greater excavation comes greater gravity imbalance and faster response. Do you think half the Earth's oceans could escape from beneath the firmament before this gravitational response started? Anyway, a simple thought experiment should back this up. Drop a large, flat, concrete plate square onto a layer of water. If the impact is a good, flat slap, the block will not hit the bottom for a good long time while the water moves around it.

Also, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not show the height needed to push the continents laterally to their current locations.

Gravity is a powerful force with enough mass behind it. Imagine the energy a locomotive could use if a flat, mile length of track were raised at one end by a few feet.

The graphics in Dr. Brown's book show the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rising without any compression happening to the theorized layer of water between the crust and the mantle.

The water layer was breached and released which caused the removal of overlying mass which allowed the MOR to rise in response.

In the theory, the "10-mile-thick crust" atop the subterranean water is being shot up into the atmosphere and beyond by the pressure of the water, which is making a low pressure ridge that is being filled in by the gravitational effects from the magma layer. Dr. Brown seems to conviently forget about the pressures of the "10-mile-thick crust" and the ocean above the ridge during this process in his attempts to identify the effects of the pressure from the subterranean water.

The firmament was removed by escaping water. The mass has to be excavated in order to generate the gravity imbalance.

Now, anyone that has attempted to bake cakes, breads, and muffins has seen the type of cracking that is shown in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge The cracking is not caused by a lowering of pressure across the outside of the bread, but an increase of pressure from the inside of the bread.

Which is exactly what Dr. Brown proposes! Gravity (your "pressure") pressed the mantle upward beneath what became the Atlantic Basin in response to the removal of overlying burden.

In the same manner, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not show the terracing expected if the rise of the ridge was related to the rise found inside of complex craters.

Well, I'm not sure why the walls of a complex crater are terraced as opposed to a smaller crater, but I can tell you that the walls of the rupture in Dr. Brown's model are the continental rises at the edges of the Atlantic Basin (and elsewhere). They hydroplaned away from the rupture so perhaps what causes the terracing in craters was unable to affect the rises on Earth.

Instead, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge shows the kind of rise expected from an increase of pressure in the magma of the earth which splits the crust of the earth like a ripe tomato.

There was no crust. This idea provides a source for the increase in pressure. What we see today at the center of the Atlantic, the Mid Ocean Ridge, is not the firmament that was broken up. It is the response of the mantle (which was the floor of the subterranean water chamber) to the removal of mass above it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Right. Air pressure from within stretched the plastic of the balloon to breaking at its weakest point. Similarly, water pressure within the Earth stretched the firmament to breaking at its weakest point.
I'm not sure the analogy is meant to stretch that far or even what particular morphology you are referring to. But the edge of the tear in the firmament looks like this:

or this:

This is after the torn edge has hydroplaned away from the initial rupture and crashed to a stop. You can see the edges easily in Google Maps and follow their extent up and down each coast of the Atlantic Ocean. Elsewhere, they are discoverable in patches, but have been over-ridden by trenches or other features.

Water pressure did not stretch the atmosphere (firmament) to a breaking point, and what you are showing is the continental shelf, not the edge of the rupture.
But, we were not talking about the continental shelf, we were talking about the mid-ocean ridges.

Where are these ridges you speak of?

A mid-ocean ridge is a general term for an underwater mountain system that consists of various mountain ranges (chains), typically having a valley known as a rift running along its spine...
The mid-ocean ridges of the world are connected and form a single global mid-oceanic ridge system that is part of every ocean, making the mid-oceanic ridge system the longest mountain range in the world. The continuous mountain range is 65,000 km (40,400 mi) long (several times longer than the Andes, the longest continental mountain range), and the total length of the oceanic ridge system is 80,000 km (49,700 mi) long.​

Here is what Dr. Brown says about the mid-ocean ridge:

Rupture Phase. Centuries of tidal pumping (explained on page 120 and pages 510–511) powerfully increased the pressure in the subterranean water. This stretched the overlying crust, just as a balloon stretches when the pressure inside increases. Eventually, this shell of rock reached its failure point. Failure began with a microscopic crack at the earth’s surface. Because stresses in such cracks are concentrated at each end of the crack, each end grew rapidly—at about 3 miles per second. Within seconds, this crack penetrated down to the subterranean chamber and then followed the path of least resistance. The rupture probably completed its path around the earth in about 2 hours. Initial stresses were largely relieved when one end of the crack ran into the path left by the other end. In other words, the crack traveled a path that intersected itself at a large angle, forming a “T” or “Y” on the opposite side of the earth from where the rupture began.
As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to nearly atmospheric pressure. This caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.
All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere.​

As explained in his description:

Although a void opens up under the upbuckled foam mattress, no void would open up deep inside the earth, because pressures are too great. Consequently, high-pressure rock from below would buckle up to fill the space. That would not leave a void farther down, because even deeper rock would be squeezed up to fill the space. Ultimately, mass from the opposite side of the earth must depress to compensate for the rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the entire Atlantic floor.

-source.​

This process is what I attempted to show in my pretty animation from post 7:
make a gif. The Atlantic basin is on the right side. Pacific on Left.

The opposite side of the Earth from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the Pacific Basin.
The opposite side of the Earth from the East Pacific Rise is the Himalaya Mountains.

The Mid-Ocean Ridge encircles the entire globe, so there is no opposite side of the earth to depress.

 

[Stripe]

Water pressure did not stretch the atmosphere (firmament) to a breaking point, and what you are showing is the continental shelf, not the edge of the rupture. But, we were not talking about the continental shelf, we were talking about the mid-ocean ridges.

The firmament is the Earth's crust, not the atmosphere. Both of these are key concepts presented in Dr. Brown's theory.

SCW. At a pressure of one atmosphere—about 1.01 bar or 14.7 psi (pounds per square inch)—water boils at a temperature slightly above 212°F (100°C). As pressure increases, the boiling point rises. At a pressure of 3,200 psi (220.6 bars) the boiling temperature is 705°F (374°C). Above this pressure-temperature combination, called the critical point, water is supercritical and cannot boil. The initial pressure in the 10-mile-deep subterranean chamber was about 62,000 psi (4,270 bars)—far above the critical pressure. After about a century of tidal pumping, the subterranean water exceeded the critical temperature, 705°F. As the temperature continued to increase, the pressure grew, the crust stretched and weakened... as the SCW flowed toward the base of the rupture, its pressure dropped and the vapor portion expanded and cooled to an extreme extent. As it expanded, it pushed on the surrounding fluid (gas and liquid), giving all fluid downstream ever increasing kinetic energy. Eventually, the horizontally flowing liquid-gas mixture began to flow upward through the rupture. As the fluid rose, its pressure dropped to almost zero in seconds, so the electrical energy of ionization was released. The 10,000-fold expansion was a weeks-long, focused explosion of indescribable magnitude, accelerating the mixture, including rocks and dirt, into the vacuum of space. In summary, as the flood began, SCW jetted up through a globe-encircling rupture in the crust—as from a ruptured pressure cooker. This huge acceleration expanded the spacing between water molecules, allowing flash evaporation, sudden and extreme cooling, followed by even greater expansion, acceleration, and cooling. Therefore, most of the vast thermal, electrical, chemical, and surface energy in the subterranean water ended up not as heat at the earth’s surface but as extreme kinetic energy in all the fountains of the great deep. As you will see, these velocities were high enough to launch rocks into outer space—the final dumping ground for most of the energy in the SCW.

-source.​

Regions of Greatest Erosion. The water’s horizontal velocity and erosion power increase to the right. Because the water’s pressure decreases as it approaches the right edge, the hydroplate will sag downward, constricting the flow and increasing erosion even more. The bottom right of the hydroplate will, in effect, be beveled by the erosion, causing the top to incline downward. This process formed continental shelves and continental slopes around the world.

-source.​

and your own reading shows that water pressure from below is what is proposed that ruptured the firmament.

Rupture Phase. Centuries of tidal pumping (explained on page 120 and pages 510–511) powerfully increased the pressure in the subterranean water. This stretched the overlying crust, just as a balloon stretches when the pressure inside increases. Eventually, this shell of rock reached its failure point. Failure began with a microscopic crack at the earth’s surface. Because stresses in such cracks are concentrated at each end of the crack, each end grew rapidly—at about 3 miles per second. Within seconds, this crack penetrated down to the subterranean chamber and then followed the path of least resistance. The rupture probably completed its path around the earth in about 2 hours. Initial stresses were largely relieved when one end of the crack ran into the path left by the other end. In other words, the crack traveled a path that intersected itself at a large angle, forming a “T” or “Y” on the opposite side of the earth from where the rupture began.
As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to nearly atmospheric pressure. This caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.
All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere.​

The Mid-Ocean Ridge encircles the entire globe, so there is no opposite side of the earth to depress.

Sure there is. Where the rupture first met equatorial latitudes, the gravity imbalance would have worked in that areas favour before the rupture reached the same latitude on the other side. Once started, the process favouring the Atlantic continued to do so even though the later rupture on the other side offset the process to some extent.

If you place two weights on either end of a see-saw simultaneously it would , theoretically, remain balanced. But one will always hit earlier than the other in practice and the see-saw will favour that side and eventually fall to that side.

I'm going to go through the formation and movement of the hydrooplates in my next post. Stay tuned!