Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory

[aharvey]

By the way, in case you were wondering why I haven't posted anything else on this thread, its because after having read the chapter on trench formation (all of it), I sort of figured out that aharvey's "objections/questions" were contrived at best and down right dishonest at worst. The answers to his questions are intuitive if you've read the material. Either that, or he is simply trying to interpret the theory within a plate-tectonic paradigm, which wouldn't surprise me.

In any case, it isn't worth the effort (not to mention the time) it would take to debate it with him. If the information in the book (which I can barely bring myself to believe he's actually read) doesn't answer his questions, nothing will or even could. If you want badly enough not to see something, you won't see it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Oh that has to mean a lot coming from someone who definitely has read any of the material. :chuckle:

These consecutive posts are priceless, Clete, coming from someone who lept late into this fray vigorously defending something he hadn't even read!!!

I rather suspect your reasons for not continuing to post are different from what you here claim, Clete, though I of course cannot prove it. They might be rather similar to the reasons that Peggy feigned surprise that there were problems associated with my attempts to email them despite the fact that everyone I know who has tried that address from anywhere in the world has had similar problems, yourself included.

Your "intuitive answers" are ciphers, Clete. They seem to exist only because that entire document is set up specifically to make it as difficult as possible to study it from certain critically important perspectives (to scale, for one example, and three-dimensionally, for another). Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that I've presented my entire analysis, when nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated, er, in the beginning, I have found it unsatisfactory to post too complex a topic in one big chunk, and so decided to lay out my analyses and questions in bits and pieces, starting with the sequence of events. (Unfortunately, this hasn't worked too well either as it seems that not even Walt Brown's most ardent supporters have actually read his work well enough to discuss it!)

So Clete, if you do in fact think you have intuitive answers to my questions that aren't dismantled by the analyses I've already posted, my guess is that they have been dismantled in the analyses I've done but haven't yet posted. And before you get too bent out of shape by all this, just remember this post and this post of yours. In the first post you tried to tell me that there is a real difference between the compressive forces on the granite at the bottom of the hydroplate and, um, the compressive forces on the granite at the bottom of the hydroplate. In the second post, many posts into our exchange, you still seem to have no idea that The Central Assumption of the hydroplate theory is that a 3/4 mile thick layer of water (the hydroshell) covered the earth, itself covered by a completely sealed 10-mile thick layer of granite (the hydroplate). So I don't think you can safely assume you're the only clear thinker about this stuff.

 

[Johnny]

The mantle will react by moving upward.

When the mantle moves upward material below that will move upward.

Put a sponge on the table. Press down on it with your hand. Now release your hand. The sponge expands upwards, right? It doesn't "move" upwards. Now stack two sponges together and compress them downwards. Now gap two fingers enough that one sponge expands up into the space between. Notice that the sponge does not buckle, it expands, and the sponge below does not have a void to fill.

 

[Stripe]

Put a sponge on the table. Press down on it with your hand. Now release your hand. The sponge expands upwards -- but it does not buckle or create a void underneath into which mass below will move. What you'll have is expansion.

Why doesn't the table also buckle upwards Johnny?

 

[Johnny]

Why doesn't the table also buckle upwards Johnny?

You're not applying longitudinal force to it (ignoring the fact that a table has very little flexibility and will likely snap before it buckles), and the compressive force is too small for any expansion to occur when the force is released.

 

[Stripe]

And if the table were made of the same stuff as the sponge?

 

[aharvey]

If you removed the weight of the overlying crust off the mantle, the mantle will respond to the decrease in pressure.

The mantle will react by moving upward.

No it won't. It will expand! How can you continue to fail to see the difference between this and this ??? Here, try this image. From the initial starting point, moving up is not the same as expanding.

When the mantle moves upward material below that will move upward.

The mantle doesn't move up when hydroplate is removed, it expands. When the mantle expands, there is no room for material below that to go (see third figure).

When all that moves up any material to the side of the affected area that is not massive enough to resist the uplift will also be uplifted..

The mantle doesn't move up when hydroplate is removed, it expands. When the mantle expands, there is no room for material below that to go (see third figure).

Your model and Walt's model both say the same thing.

They do not say the same thing. Here, try this image. From the initial starting point, moving up is not the same as expanding.

Mass has been removed and mass will shift upward.

You can sigh all you want and you can deny the plausibility of the model all you like, but don't try and confuse the issue by arguing about irrelevant differences in analogies..

If there is nowhere for the deeper material to move up into (as is the case when the material expands), then the difference is hardly irrelevant. Of course, given the greater problems with the model, it may not be the most important point!

 

[Stripe]

Mass moves upward when something expands.

 

[aharvey]

Mass moves upward when something expands.

So, just to be clear, you don't see any relevant difference between my upward movement and upward expansion examples? They will both lead to a gap (you know, like a trench or an ocean) at the bottom?

 

[Stripe]

So, just to be clear, you don't see any relevant difference between my upward movement and upward expansion examples? They will both lead to a gap (you know, like a trench or an ocean) at the bottom?

If you remove mass from atop a pressurised layer cake of stuff then the pressurised stuff will elevate according to pressure differential. That you and Walt choose to demonstrate this fact using different models just indicates you have different ideas about how the Earth is constructed. If Walt's model is accurate then I see no reason why elevation under the Atlantic would not lead to slumping in the Pacific.

 

[aharvey]

If you remove mass from atop a pressurised layer cake of stuff then the pressurised stuff will elevate according to pressure differential. That you and Walt choose to demonstrate this fact using different models just indicates you have different ideas about how the Earth is constructed. If Walt's model is accurate then I see no reason why elevation under the Atlantic would not lead to slumping in the Pacific.

No, it's rather more basic, and profound, than merely having "different ideas about how the Earth is constructed." Look at this figure again. Imagine this being a slice of the Earth, the top representing the Atlantic side, and going as far down as you care (i.e., you could have the bottom represent the Pacific side). In this particular case, the scale doesn't matter. The dark brown region in the first two images represents the compressed crust+mantle, compressed under the weight of all that hydroplate. The first image shows the location and elevation of this compressed matter when the hydroplate is in place. The next two images show that the top of the crust+mantle is higher than before once the hydroplate is removed (i.e., the mid-Atlantic ridge). The middle image is the extreme Walt Brown version in which the crust+mantle moves up, causing what you so fondly refer to as the slump at the bottom (the dark blue). The last image is what you would get if the crust+mantle elevation increases because it expands under the reduced pressure. No slump.

You need something MORE than the mere reduction of compressive forces on the mantle to cause the mantle to elevate MORE than it would due to mere decompression, and if there WERE such additional forces operating on the mantle in opposition to the gravitational pressure of the hydroplate, then the two masses wouldn't be in equilibrium, and we wouldn't have to wait for a microscopic crack in the top of the hydroplate for the whole system to collapse!

 

[Stripe]

Removing mass from the Atlantic results in decompression. It also necessarily involves removal of mass from the Atlantic. Removal of mass from the Atlantic brings gravity into play which wants the Earth as spherical as possible. This is achieved by replacing the mass lost from teh Atlantic with mass from the Pacific following the most direct route available. Your attempt to discern between what might be expanding and what might be uplifting ignores the fact that the model requires the loss of material from the Atlantic. Putting the mass loss and the decompression together as a unified event renders meaningless your distinction.

 

[aharvey]

Removing mass from the Atlantic results in decompression. It also necessarily involves removal of mass from the Atlantic. Removal of mass from the Atlantic brings gravity into play which wants the Earth as spherical as possible. This is achieved by replacing the mass lost from teh Atlantic with mass from the Pacific following the most direct route available. Your attempt to discern between what might be expanding and what might be uplifting ignores the fact that the model requires the loss of material from the Atlantic. Putting the mass loss and the decompression together as a unified event renders meaningless your distinction.

Um, a good deal of the mass "lost" from the Atlantic side (I assume you're referring to the hydroplate cleared out from the 800-mile wide rupture) isn't actually lost, it's just redistributed over a larger area. But even if you're of the mind that most of this stuff was launched into outer space, the amount of mass lost/redistributed from/on the Atlantic side is likely to be pretty much equal to the amount of mass lost/redistributed from/on the 800-mile wide rupture on the Pacific side. Unless I'm overlooking something basic here, because the hydroplate theory and its advocates sure are strangely silent about the rupture outside of the Atlantic.

And the whole notion that planetary masses of rock can redistribute themselves to maximize sphericity, especially on the instantaneous planet-wide scale required by the hydroplate theory, is just plain farcical. If the oceans and trenches can be created by this kind of shifting masses in a matter of minutes then why, four thousand years later, do we still have such tremendous variation in ocean depths and continental crust thicknesses? What happened, did gravity change its mind?

 

[Stripe]

The simple fact you're missing is that the Atlantic event came first. That means the Atlantic situation was the most explosive. That means the Atlantic uplifted before the Pacific.

The redistributed mass was redistributed almost entirely in places other than where it came from. Which means there is a mass imbalance not only from the excavation, but also from the redeposition.

Gravity didn't change its mind. It did all the hard work early on in redistributing the Earth's mass on a planet-wide scale. Today there are minor aftershocks that still occur every now and then.

Just like when you drop a mug of coffee. First there is a big noise and a lot of movement. Then a whole lot of liquid starts spreading over the floor. Perhaps a minute later there won't be any more obvious or consistent movement, but things will still happen from time to time.

 

[aharvey]

The simple fact you're missing is that the Atlantic event came first. That means the Atlantic situation was the most explosive. That means the Atlantic uplifted before the Pacific.

So what you're saying is that the-rupture-on-the-Atlantic-side-formed-and-reached-its maximum-width-and-the-planet-compensated-by-subsiding-trenches-plus-the-Pacific-and-Indian-Oceans all before the rupture reached any significant size anywhere else on the planet? Fascinating, especially since the temporal difference between the Atlantic and Pacific (and Indian, and Antarctic) events was supposedly on the scale of minutes or a few hours [EDIT: A quote from Walt: "Subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans began a startling 20–25 minutes after the Atlantic floor began its rise, the time it takes stresses and strains from a seismic wave to pass through the earth."]. And even if that made any sense, how would it help you again? The Mid-Oceanic ridge is not exactly wider in the Atlantic Ocean than elsewhere, which would seem to imply that, even if it did happen a few minutes earlier in the Atlantic, the amount of hydroplate removed to allow ridge formation wasn't particularly greater. Well, except that it's my impression that a considerable majority of the 46,000 miles of the mid-oceanic ridge isn't even in the Atlantic. So in fact according to this muddled logic there's been greater mass removal outside of the Atlantic than inside the Atlantic, so the Atlantic ultimately should end up with a net subsidence.

The redistributed mass was redistributed almost entirely in places other than where it came from.

So all the Atlantic mass is now on the Pacific side of the planet? Gee whiz, stipe, how about thinking this through before jumping on the reflexive, intuitive but almost certainly oversimplified response? The mean location of the sediment would not change, but the variance would increase. So the mass on the Atlantic side of the planet would only drop by the amount blasted into outer space.

Which means there is a mass imbalance not only from the excavation, but also from the redeposition.

No, the mean location of the sediment would not change. So the mass on the Atlantic side of the planet would only drop by the amount blasted into outer space. The redeposition would not increase the mass imbalance.

Gravity didn't change its mind. It did all the hard work early on in redistributing the Earth's mass on a planet-wide scale. Today there are minor aftershocks that still occur every now and then.

That's just too funny. I've tried to point out that on a planetary scale even the complete clearing out of the rupture (as unsupportable as that is!) is minor to trivial, and given the low relief of Walt's pre-flood world, we've got far greater imbalances now than we would have had after that rift excavation. And yet gravity worked hard dealing with minor imbalances but doesn't need to deal with the more significant imbalances of today's geology?

Just like when you drop a mug of coffee. First there is a big noise and a lot of movement. Then a whole lot of liquid starts spreading over the floor. Perhaps a minute later there won't be any more obvious or consistent movement, but things will still happen from time to time.

That's because after a few minutes the liquid has spread out as much as it can (not a lot of elevational variation, wouldn't you think?). Are you saying that the earth is as spherical as gravity "wants it to be"?

 

[Jukia]

Just like when you drop a mug of coffee. First there is a big noise and a lot of movement. Then a whole lot of liquid starts spreading over the floor. Perhaps a minute later there won't be any more obvious or consistent movement, but things will still happen from time to time.

What things, Brownian motion things?
Why does this analogy strike me like the Mt. St. Helens/Grand Canyon analogy but even on a much larger scale? A cup of coffee compared to the Hydroplate theory. Marvelous, or should I say miraculous.
Actually, when I drop a cup of coffee I say some really bad words, imagine all the bad words all the soon to be dead people cried out when the stuff hit the fan for the great Noachian flood! And Noah, just laughed and laughed---at least until he had to start shoveling horse, dino, etc manure.

Go talk to a geologist Stipe, see how much they laugh when you review Brown's theory with them.

God Bless aharvey. He goes beyond and has the patience of Job.

 

[Stripe]

So what you're saying is that the-rupture-on-the-Atlantic-side-formed-and-reached-its maximum-width-and-the-planet-compensated-by-subsiding-trenches-plus-the-Pacific-and-Indian-Oceans all before the rupture reached any significant size anywhere else on the planet?

No. I'm saying the sequence started in the Atlantic so the most explosive stuff will happen there and also the largest shifts will happen there.

So all the Atlantic mass is now on the Pacific side of the planet?

No. It's just not all back where it started.

Gee whiz, stipe, how about thinking this through before jumping on the reflexive, intuitive but almost certainly oversimplified response? The mean location of the sediment would not change, but the variance would increase. So the mass on the Atlantic side of the planet would only drop by the amount blasted into outer space.

Sure. But the mass over the rupture site would be almost totally removed.

No, the mean location of the sediment would not change. So the mass on the Atlantic side of the planet would only drop by the amount blasted into outer space. The redeposition would not increase the mass imbalance.

Yes it would. Digging a hole means less in the hole and more out of it. Mass imbalance.

That's just too funny. I've tried to point out that on a planetary scale even the complete clearing out of the rupture (as unsupportable as that is!) is minor to trivial, and given the low relief of Walt's pre-flood world, we've got far greater imbalances now than we would have had after that rift excavation. And yet gravity worked hard dealing with minor imbalances but doesn't need to deal with the more significant imbalances of today's geology?

We have ocean basins formed within a few hours today?

That's because after a few minutes the liquid has spread out as much as it can (not a lot of elevational variation, wouldn't you think?). Are you saying that the earth is as spherical as gravity "wants it to be"?

The Earth is as spherical as gravity can make it.

 

[aharvey]

No. I'm saying the sequence started in the Atlantic so the most explosive stuff will happen there and also the largest shifts will happen there.


No. It's just not all back where it started.


Sure. But the mass over the rupture site would be almost totally removed.


Yes it would. Digging a hole means less in the hole and more out of it. Mass imbalance.


We have ocean basins formed within a few hours today?


The Earth is as spherical as gravity can make it.

All I can say, stipe, is that first of all, you're not talking about Walt Brown's model any more, because he's quite explicit that it is the rising of the ridge, not the clearing out of the rupture (what you refer to as 'digging the hole'), that leads to the subsidence of the Pacific trenches and the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But like Walt, you've got a pretty poor grasp of both the temporal and the spatial scale of the events you envision. But the ironies are just too much for me to keep up with, especially as this isn't even the hydroplate theory anymore. Oh, okay, I'll mention just one: the imbalance caused by the removal of mass X from the Atlantic rupture requires an immediate transfer of a mass much larger than X from the Pacific side, but the imbalance caused by the redeposition of most of that same mass back onto the same side of the planet (as it "rains" down or washes over the side) requires no such transfer! Also, for a laugh you should look carefully at Walt's figure where he illustrates his 'remarkable' claim that the center of the Atlantic Ocean is on the exact opposite side of the planet from the Pacific trenches. It's absolutely pivotal to this aspect of his argument, and your novel variation too, I think.

 

[Stripe]

Cool. Nice talking to you.

 

[Nick M]

Questions on Dr. Brown's theory:
1. Before the flood were there oceans on the surface of the earth?
2. When the fountains opened and started throwing stuff up into the air, what was the speed at which, a rock, say, one of the ones that became an asteroid, going when it left the surface of the earth?
3. What is escape velocity at the surface of the earth? Would not the rocks have to be accelerated to that speed almost immediately?

Any one with any thoughts about this?

The same forces that moved the mountains to where/how they are now. You are as stupid as you were on Bob Enyarts old website forum.

 

[Jukia]

The same forces that moved the mountains to where/how they are now. You are as stupid as you were on Bob Enyarts old website forum.

That did not answer the questions I asked. But thanks for the ad hominem.