Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
aharvey
New member
The documentation on the hydroplate theory is clearly an attempt at persuasion instead of a scientific presentation, with 250 pages worth of arguments, assumptions, “predictions,” data, and claims all mixed together in a confusing but nonetheless impressive mishmash. Alas, it has so far defied my efforts to tease out the fundamental model and supporting chain of logic. After Bob’s show, I decided to take another “crack” at it, if you will. Perhaps those folks here who believe in the hydroplate theory can confirm a couple of basic points.
First, the incredible speed with which that original microscopic crack, 10 miles high, spread across the entire planet, and the catastrophic events that followed seem to indicate that prior to this event the hydroplate must have formed a perfect seal above the hydroshell, 10 miles thick, around the entire planet Earth. Is this indeed an explicit assumption of the theory? The whole process depends on tremendous pressures, and the very first leak in the system would either prevent the system from reaching those pressures (so that subsequent leaks would not lead to disaster) or else would itself be The Crack.
Second, the distinctiveness of continental and oceanic plates is well established, as is their relative positions: the heavier oceanic plates lie under the lighter oceans and continental plates. When I try to incorporate this basic concept into the hydroplate model, it seems to me that in the pre-Flood Earth the crust below the hydroshell must be the ancestral oceanic plates, and the ten mile layer on top of the hydroshell must correspond to continental plates. It’s a bit of a nightmare trying to evaluate this from his web site text, but if you run through the little 5-min animation (http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov) linked at Brown's site, it seems to be the only possible arrangement: hydroplates are pieces of the continental plate zipping along on top of the water "film" covering the oceanic plates, which meanwhile are buckling up as the continental plate and water blast into space all along the MidOceanic Ridge. Can anyone confirm or refute whether the hydroplates correspond to continental plates and the crust under the hydroshell corresponds to oceanic lithosphere?
First, the incredible speed with which that original microscopic crack, 10 miles high, spread across the entire planet, and the catastrophic events that followed seem to indicate that prior to this event the hydroplate must have formed a perfect seal above the hydroshell, 10 miles thick, around the entire planet Earth. Is this indeed an explicit assumption of the theory? The whole process depends on tremendous pressures, and the very first leak in the system would either prevent the system from reaching those pressures (so that subsequent leaks would not lead to disaster) or else would itself be The Crack.
Second, the distinctiveness of continental and oceanic plates is well established, as is their relative positions: the heavier oceanic plates lie under the lighter oceans and continental plates. When I try to incorporate this basic concept into the hydroplate model, it seems to me that in the pre-Flood Earth the crust below the hydroshell must be the ancestral oceanic plates, and the ten mile layer on top of the hydroshell must correspond to continental plates. It’s a bit of a nightmare trying to evaluate this from his web site text, but if you run through the little 5-min animation (http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov) linked at Brown's site, it seems to be the only possible arrangement: hydroplates are pieces of the continental plate zipping along on top of the water "film" covering the oceanic plates, which meanwhile are buckling up as the continental plate and water blast into space all along the MidOceanic Ridge. Can anyone confirm or refute whether the hydroplates correspond to continental plates and the crust under the hydroshell corresponds to oceanic lithosphere?
Last edited:
aharvey
New member
Okay, I've found where Brown does indeed say the top layer is granite and the bottom layer is basalt. I tell you, he doesn't make it easy!
For example, here's an odd tidbit. Here he writes that during the flood phase the water jetting upwards at supersonic speeds scraped off massive amounts of the cliffs, which seems a reasonable expectation. However, he then says that about 35% of the sediments so eroded in fact came from the basalt of the chamber floor.
This seemed odd to me for any number of reasons (basalt seeming less prone to erosion than granite, water would not be moving at supersonic speeds until it left the basalt floor, and would take potentially eroding sediments away from the basalt, etc.). So I checked out his footnote 38, which mostly documents why the water would move at subsonic speeds under the plate and discusses the implications for continental slopes and shelves, none of which seem to have anything to do with why the model predicts a 65/35 granite/basalt sediment composition.
If you read the last paragraph in this footnote, however, you will discover that this ratio is an empirical result of previous research, and neither an assumption, a premise, nor a prediction of his model at all!
For example, here's an odd tidbit. Here he writes that during the flood phase the water jetting upwards at supersonic speeds scraped off massive amounts of the cliffs, which seems a reasonable expectation. However, he then says that about 35% of the sediments so eroded in fact came from the basalt of the chamber floor.
This seemed odd to me for any number of reasons (basalt seeming less prone to erosion than granite, water would not be moving at supersonic speeds until it left the basalt floor, and would take potentially eroding sediments away from the basalt, etc.). So I checked out his footnote 38, which mostly documents why the water would move at subsonic speeds under the plate and discusses the implications for continental slopes and shelves, none of which seem to have anything to do with why the model predicts a 65/35 granite/basalt sediment composition.
If you read the last paragraph in this footnote, however, you will discover that this ratio is an empirical result of previous research, and neither an assumption, a premise, nor a prediction of his model at all!
aharvey
New member
bob, the post of mine that you quote here already told you what he said, gave you the link to the place where he said it, and provided the number of the footnote that supposedly explains it. What more could you possibly need? At this point I'm trying simply to understand exactly what the hydroplate theory is, which is enough of a struggle given the baffling way in which his ideas are "organized" in his book (at least the online version; is the printed version laid out differently perhaps?). If you are familiar with the theory and are willing to help, I appreciate it. Asking me to show you where Brown says a distorted version of what I said he said (complete with links to where and why) is not helpful.bob b said:
aharvey
New member
Another very basic issue I'm struggling with: I noticed several statements of Brown's which seemed to imply that the molten state of the Earth's core was a direct consequence of the Flood; here's where this seems to be pretty explicit (for example,"Friction melted much of the inner earth as mass shifted toward the rising Atlantic. The melt lubricated the shifts, allowed gravitational settling, formed the earth’s inner and outer core, and increased earth’s spin rate."). Again, this seems odd enough for some fairly basic reasons (e.g., as big and impressive as a 10-mile granite crust and half-mile thick layer of water is on our scale, and as much energy as they might generate sloshing around, in relative terms this is still far thinner than a single coat of varnish on a desktop globe), so does someone know more definitely what this model suggests the Earth's deep interior structure was before the Flood?
This ties in with a related issue I've been trying to understand. Brown repeatedly alludes (including in the link above) to the pre-Flood situation in which the weight of the hydroplate and hydroshell exactly balances the upward pressure of the mantle; when this balance is disrupted thanks to that fateful microscopic crack blasting water and hydroplate from along its seam into space, the mantle pushes up and buckles through, forming the worldwide Mid-Oceanic ridge. But why is the mantle exerting such a tremendous outward pressure over the entire planet? Again, given the relative mass of the Earth above and below the subterranean crust surface, logic would seem to suggest that changes in the hydroplate+hydroshell would barely be registered by the Earth's interior. It would rather be like breaking the skin of an apple causing its flesh to immediately push up through the cut. Does Brown explain this?
This ties in with a related issue I've been trying to understand. Brown repeatedly alludes (including in the link above) to the pre-Flood situation in which the weight of the hydroplate and hydroshell exactly balances the upward pressure of the mantle; when this balance is disrupted thanks to that fateful microscopic crack blasting water and hydroplate from along its seam into space, the mantle pushes up and buckles through, forming the worldwide Mid-Oceanic ridge. But why is the mantle exerting such a tremendous outward pressure over the entire planet? Again, given the relative mass of the Earth above and below the subterranean crust surface, logic would seem to suggest that changes in the hydroplate+hydroshell would barely be registered by the Earth's interior. It would rather be like breaking the skin of an apple causing its flesh to immediately push up through the cut. Does Brown explain this?
I was under the impression that this part was explained by the forces acting on a rotating object. Those forces make a rotating object's preferred shape a sphere and the molten inner Earth would respond to changes in its balance by moving mantle around to compensate. Of course this is dependent on a molten core which would need to be a result of creation, not of the flood.aharvey said:
?
I don't know what you're saing Jukia. Yes it is crust-water-mantle, with the chamber basement in between the mantle and the water, but isn't the mantle molten today? I'm certain it is though I did leave university over 10 years ago. Things might have changed in that time...
Is 'The Mick' a baseball player?
mantle molten mantle molten...
Is 'The Mick' a baseball player?
mantle molten mantle molten...
The current seafloor is supposed to be the remains of the original chamber floor. It has to underlay all the sediment deposited by the flood.
Mickey Mantle does ring a bell, though I guessed baseball on the strength of the Taiwanese pitcher over there at the moment. Wang Chien-Ming (王建民 ).
Mickey Mantle does ring a bell, though I guessed baseball on the strength of the Taiwanese pitcher over there at the moment. Wang Chien-Ming (王建民 ).
Mantle was the best for a while, although he wasted a great portion of his talent on booze and women. When a kid I once ran into Mantle, Whitey Ford and Billy Martin in a hotel coffee shop in DC, they were having breakfast. When I asked for an autograph they said "Not right now, kid". If it happened today I would have realized that those 3 had probably not been to bed yet!stipe said:
But to Dr. Brown. His theory states that the sea floor should be sediement and then the bottom of the original chamber floor? Do I have that right?
- Status