Dr. Walt Brown on the Hydroplate Theory

[Clete]

So everythingAlthough I'm not worrying about the mechanisms at this point, it would be keen for a physicist to weigh in on the idea that the rising of a ridge on one side of the planet would most likely be compensated for by a drop on the opposite side of the planet (i.e., through the gravitational center of the planet), rather than, say, from lateral crustal/mantle movement immediately adjacent to the rise.

I'm no physicist but wouldn't that depend upon how quickly any movement of the crust compensated for the rising of the ridge?

In other words, the compensation through the gravitational center of the Earth would indeed happen unless something intervened to prevent it, like the rapid movement of continent sized pieces of granite sliding downhill away from the ridge.

 

[aharvey]

The moon didn't have a subterrainean chamber. But when one side of the moon was pulverised the mass lost to disintergration was replaced by mass through the center and from the other side of the moon. This generated heat, molten rock, basaltic flows and a huge slump on the opposite side from where all the impacts centered.

I'm no physicist but wouldn't that depend upon how quickly any movement of the crust compensated for the rising of the ridge?

In other words, the compensation through the gravitational center of the Earth would indeed happen unless something intervened to prevent it, like the rapid movement of continent sized pieces of granite sliding downhill away from the ridge.

This is why I didn't want to talk about mechanisms just yet, because I don't think the "what happened" part has been established well enough to evaluate the "how it happened" part. But stipe, do you have a source for this story, because at the moment I'm afraid that's all it is. And even if it turns out to be true, I'm not sure how that says anything about how a narrow ridge on one side of the planet can sometimes lead to a narrow trench on the other side of the planet.

And Clete, I'm sorry but I don't get how what you're saying indicates that a sudden ridge in the mantle on one side of the planet is more likely to be compensated vertically, straight down through the gravitational core of the planet all the way to the opposite surface, rather than from mantle more immediately adjacent to the ridge.

And still, no indication of where the hydroplates could have slide to, and how it would be physically possible for this sequence of events to yield not just the Atlantic ridge and Pacific trench, but also the other ridges (e.g., Pacific) and trenches (e.g., Atlantic), which would seem to have been overrun by the first wave of activity.

 

[aharvey]

On a different matter: how do these two ideas fit together?

Idea 1: The putty-like nature of granitic rock under pressure prevents even microscopic cracks from forming when it's deformed:

"The increasing pressure in the subterranean water 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 around the earth."

"Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface are so great that the rock can deform like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty. The slightest crack or opening could not open from below."


Idea 2: The putty-like nature of granitic rock under pressure would look wildly destructive on a human scale when it's deformed:

"If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty) on a global scale. On a human scale, however, one would not see smooth, puttylike deformation; instead, one would see and hear blocks of granite fracturing and sliding over each other. Some blocks would be the size of a small state or province, many would be the size of a house, and even more would be the size of a grain of sand. "

 

[Clete]

This is why I didn't want to talk about mechanisms just yet, because I don't think the "what happened" part has been established well enough to evaluate the "how it happened" part. But stipe, do you have a source for this story, because at the moment I'm afraid that's all it is. And even if it turns out to be true, I'm not sure how that says anything about how a narrow ridge on one side of the planet can sometimes lead to a narrow trench on the other side of the planet.

And Clete, I'm sorry but I don't get how what you're saying indicates that a sudden ridge in the mantle on one side of the planet is more likely to be compensated vertically, straight down through the gravitational core of the planet all the way to the opposite surface, rather than from mantle more immediately adjacent to the ridge.

And still, no indication of where the hydroplates could have slide to, and how it would be physically possible for this sequence of events to yield not just the Atlantic ridge and Pacific trench, but also the other ridges (e.g., Pacific) and trenches (e.g., Atlantic), which would seem to have been overrun by the first wave of activity.

Your questions seem to stem from being totally unfamiliar with the Hydroplate Theory.
It sounds to me like you are asking us to explain every detail of the whole theory, which this venue would not lend itself to in the slightest. But in the way of a brief (extremely brief and incomplete) explanation...

The theory is that the continents where at one time setting atop a layer of salt water which was trapped some ten miles beneath the surface between the granite plates on top and the basalt layer underneath. The basalt was under tremendous pressure while everything was still intact and when the rift formed (by whatever mechanism) this pressure was released causing it to uplift very rapidly. The granite plates which were still riding on the as yet still present but rapidly depleting layer of salt water would now simply flow down the slope of the ridge which was now present until either the plates ran into other plates or the water layer depleted sufficiently enough to cause friction between the granite plate and the basalt "floor" of the water chamber. This "putting on of the brakes" if you will caused the granite plates to thicken and to bunch up at the leading edges of the plates thereby creating the mountains which explains why mountain ranges are roughly parallel to the ridge from which their respective land masses flowed away from when the rift formed. As for where the plates slid too, they slid to roughly their present locations. I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking, though so that may not have answered the question.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

On a different matter: how do these two ideas fit together?

Idea 1: The putty-like nature of granitic rock under pressure prevents even microscopic cracks from forming when it's deformed:

"The increasing pressure in the subterranean water 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 around the earth."

"Pressures in the crust 5 miles or more below the earth’s surface are so great that the rock can deform like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty. The slightest crack or opening could not open from below."


Idea 2: The putty-like nature of granitic rock under pressure would look wildly destructive on a human scale when it's deformed:

"If compressive forces are great enough, granite deforms (much like putty) on a global scale. On a human scale, however, one would not see smooth, puttylike deformation; instead, one would see and hear blocks of granite fracturing and sliding over each other. Some blocks would be the size of a small state or province, many would be the size of a house, and even more would be the size of a grain of sand. "

I think the highlighted sentences are the points you over looked.
The outside of the shell would not be being compressed but pulled apart like the skin of a balloon. Once this stretching breached the tensile strength of the granite catastrophic failure would result.

 

[carolus magnus]

So we should be able to expect more Earth-like material, and the craters should generally be younger on the near side? Why is the near side so much more pulverized than the far? It doesn't make sense.

One thing that is not deniable is that the near side is far more interesting to look at then the far side. Almost like it was meant for us to view...

 

[Clete]

So we should be able to expect more Earth-like material, and the craters should generally be younger on the near side? Why is the near side so much more pulverized than the far? It doesn't make sense.

One thing that is not deniable is that the near side is far more interesting to look at then the far side. Almost like it was meant for us to view...

What do you mean by "more pulverized"? The far side has many times more impact craters than does the near side.

 

[aharvey]

Your questions seem to stem from being totally unfamiliar with the Hydroplate Theory.
It sounds to me like you are asking us to explain every detail of the whole theory, which this venue would not lend itself to in the slightest.

If you take a look at my earlier posts (starting at post #62), I think you would see that neither statement is a fair assessment of where I'm coming from. I regret even asking a question that has anything to do with the underlying mechanism, because until an internally consistent sequence of events has been established, there's really no point in discussing specific mechanisms. And I don't think that sequence has happened yet.

But in the way of a brief (extremely brief and incomplete) explanation...

The theory is that the continents where at one time setting atop a layer of salt water which was trapped some ten miles beneath the surface between the granite plates on top and the basalt layer underneath. The basalt was under tremendous pressure while everything was still intact and when the rift formed (by whatever mechanism) this pressure was released causing it to uplift very rapidly. The granite plates which were still riding on the as yet still present but rapidly depleting layer of salt water would now simply flow down the slope of the ridge which was now present until either the plates ran into other plates or the water layer depleted sufficiently enough to cause friction between the granite plate and the basalt "floor" of the water chamber. This "putting on of the brakes" if you will caused the granite plates to thicken and to bunch up at the leading edges of the plates thereby creating the mountains which explains why mountain ranges are roughly parallel to the ridge from which their respective land masses flowed away from when the rift formed. As for where the plates slid too, they slid to roughly their present locations. I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking, though so that may not have answered the question.

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

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

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

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

 

[Stripe]

So we should be able to expect more Earth-like material, and the craters should generally be younger on the near side? Why is the near side so much more pulverized than the far? It doesn't make sense.

Not really. The impacts pulverised the surface and removed mass on a large scale. Aharvey has missed this it seems. I am not talking about a narrow trench on either side, I am talking about ocean sized depressions. On the near side the result was the basalt floods (maria) that have infilled much of the holes dug by the largest impacts. On the far side there has been impacts as well. Nothing on the scale of the near side though. But there is still a huge depression that matches perfectly the hole on the other side. These two ocean basins (minus the water and over-riding hydroplate) are completely analogous to the situation on Earth.

One thing that is not deniable is that the near side is far more interesting to look at then the far side. Almost like it was meant for us to view...

If you like your moon beat to a pulp .. sure.

 

[carolus magnus]

If you like your moon beat to a pulp .. sure.

I'm one who believes true beauty is found in character. A grandma whose had a life of raising and loving her children is far more beautiful than one of those poor anorexic, drugged up walking sticks on the runway any day.

So yeah, the beat up side has more character to it and thus is more interesting to behold.

 

[Stripe]

I'm one who believes true beauty is found in character. A grandma whose had a life of raising and loving her children is far more beautiful than one of those poor anorexic, drugged up walking sticks on the runway any day. So yeah, the beat up side has more character to it and thus is more interesting to behold.

It's certainly far more likely to be beholded ... hehe ..

Nuke the runway!

 

[Stripe]

hehehe .. my pics of the moon look like the Death Star...

 

[aharvey]

Not really. The impacts pulverised the surface and removed mass on a large scale. Aharvey has missed this it seems. I am not talking about a narrow trench on either side, I am talking about ocean sized depressions. On the near side the result was the basalt floods (maria) that have infilled much of the holes dug by the largest impacts. On the far side there has been impacts as well. Nothing on the scale of the near side though. But there is still a huge depression that matches perfectly the hole on the other side. These two ocean basins (minus the water and over-riding hydroplate) are completely analogous to the situation on Earth.

You're right, I do not see on either side "a huge depression that matches perfectly the hole on the other side." Are the circles you've drawn supposed to show this (I surely hope not, since they don't match at all!)? And how would matching depressions on opposing sides of the Moon be at all analogous to matching elevated ridges and depressed trenches on opposing sides of the Earth?

 

[Stripe]

*sigh*

It's a lump of rock AH, not the T1000.

 

[aharvey]

*sigh*

It's a lump of rock AH, not the T1000.

No idea what that means, stipe. Look, unless by "perfect match" you mean "not matched at all," I just need some help seeing the perfect match to which you refer.

 

[Jukia]

According to Stipe, about 4000 years ago, when the fountains of the great deep opened up, the crack, that now is the mid ocean ridge spewed forth water and rock, going fast enough at the start (remember there is not any acceleration after that first burst---not like a rocket) to still be going fast enough when it got 240,000 miles away to pulverize the surface of the moon that faces us with enough force to cause basalt to spew out on the surface of the moon with enough energy to cause an area on the other side of the moon to cave in.
1. Seems to me that the explosion of water, rocks, fish, people?, etc, must have been pretty direcitonal to hit the moon with such a concentration. Is there an explanation for that?
2. There are I suspect some aspects of orbital mechanics that are being ignored but I am not the person to analyze thoses.
3. What happened to all the stuff that hit the moon? And what happened to "the mass it removed", where did that go? Did it all disappear? Should the side facing us have more earth like material?
4. Can anyone tell us if there really is a huge depression on the far side of the moon? If so what is the causation normally suggested?

 

[Stripe]

No idea what that means, stipe. Look, unless by "perfect match" you mean "not matched at all," I just need some help seeing the perfect match to which you refer.

The big red circles on the near side are matched by the bigger red circle on the other side.

Why are there big depressions on the moon AH?

 

[Stripe]

going fast enough when it got 240,000 miles away to pulverize the surface of the moon that faces us with enough force to cause basalt to spew out on the surface of the moon with enough energy to cause an area on the other side of the moon to cave in.

How fast is the moon travelling Jukia?

1. Seems to me that the explosion of water, rocks, fish, people?, etc, must have been pretty direcitonal to hit the moon with such a concentration. Is there an explanation for that?

Ever heard of gravity?

3. What happened to all the stuff that hit the moon? And what happened to "the mass it removed", where did that go? Did it all disappear?

More than likely it went shooting off in all directions.

Should the side facing us have more earth like material?

Sure. Why not..?

4. Can anyone tell us if there really is a huge depression on the far side of the moon? If so what is the causation normally suggested?

they call it the largest crater in the solar system.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960906.html

 

[Stripe]

for the record: i explained this to an athiest, chinese kid today and he was about as skeptical as you lot are, but he could probably explain it all to you better than i seem to be able to...

 

[aharvey]

The big red circles on the near side are matched by the bigger red circle on the other side.

Why are there big depressions on the moon AH?

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

Tomorrow I hope to have my next fun graphic ready for public consumption, along with the accompanying musings about whether the water jetting vertically out of the rift, eroding the walls and clearing out the sediment as it goes, would continue to do so as the rift expands into a rupture many miles, indeed many hundreds of miles, wide.