The Hydroplate Thoery
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Hydroplate Thoery

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    400

    The Hydroplate Thoery

    An interesting alternative to modern geology theories is the hydroplate theory. It is used by christian "young earhers" to justify thier position on the age of the earth. It is very interesting however.

    "There are many geological features on the earth that cannot be explained using evolutionary and "long age" theories. But these features appear to be consequences of a cataclysmic, worldwide flood, whose waters burst forth from under the earth's crust. Walt Brown describes these features in detail. Here we will briefly mention them."

    Here is the site link:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...droplate1.html

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    206

    Thumbs down

    As I understand it this theory goes so: a solid center at the core of the earth, a water layer, then above that, a layer of granite 'floats' on the water. Right?

    Couple of flaws I see in this :
    • This theory means that there could NEVER had been any meterorites hitting the earth prior to the flood
    • The earths crust must be totally water tight (around the whole surface of the earth?)
    • No earthquakes, cos this might split the crust
    • What would happen if we had drilled into the crust?


    This hydroplate theory sure is a unique approach to things! But I think the writer of it started with an effect (say it raining for 40 days n nights) when worked out a possible scenario how this might happen. Effect then cause rather than cause then effect. Dont put anything in this theory myself - but each to their own though.




  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    400
    Originally posted by the_g_nee
    As I understand it this theory goes so: a solid center at the core of the earth, a water layer, then above that, a layer of granite 'floats' on the water. Right?

    Couple of flaws I see in this :
    • This theory means that there could NEVER had been any meterorites hitting the earth prior to the flood
    • The earths crust must be totally water tight (around the whole surface of the earth?)
    • No earthquakes, cos this might split the crust
    • What would happen if we had drilled into the crust?


    This hydroplate theory sure is a unique approach to things! But I think the writer of it started with an effect (say it raining for 40 days n nights) when worked out a possible scenario how this might happen. Effect then cause rather than cause then effect. Dont put anything in this theory myself - but each to their own though.
    I'm not totally sold on the idea either..but your objections are easily rebutted.
    1) It only means that one didn't hit with sufficent force to crack the layer
    2) It could have been "watertight" at one time...since the layers are now compressed together you can't really examine it(lack of possible examination will keep this a "theory")
    3) You are using an old school paradigm in understanding earthquakes...How do you explain fractal fissures with the current thoery? This thoery totally redefines howo earthquakes occur. You could not have examined it to any degree in the short time it took you to respond to this thread .
    4)That point is "mote" since the layer has already been comprimised.

    Now I am not defending this thoery like my life depended on it. I have however been examining it for a while. I suggest you do also and you will see how weak your objections are.(nothing personal )

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    206
    1.
    LAKE ACRAMAN in South Australia is Armageddon for the purist. No other meteorite impact on Earth has stamped the surrounding rocks with such an abiding, unequivocal record of collision, quake, wind, fire and tsunami. The story it tells is elemental--without dying dinosaurs or even Bruce Willis to complicate its simple message of destruction. First, the numbers: a rocky meteorite more than 4 kilometres across and travelling at around 90 000 kilometres an hour slammed into an area of red volcanic rock about 430 kilometres northwest of Adelaide. Within seconds the meteorite vaporised in a ball of fire, carving out a crater about 4 kilometres deep and 40 kilometres in diameter and spawning earthquakes fierce enough to raise 100-metre-high tsunamis in a shallow sea 300 kilometres away...
    I think there is a **good** chance the crust just got cracked..... ps I doubt this is the **biggest** meteor to hit the earth either.

    2. The crust could indeed have been water tight, its possible, though it truth I think doubtfull, but as you say "lack of possible examination will keep this a "theory".

    3. I cant explain fractual fissures with my old school model - I am not a geologist

    4. I'll allow you point four, your correct

    5. The scientific answer to it all:

    Brown has a 10 km thick granite crust with a 1 km thick layer of water. The pressure is enough to raise a tube of water to 17 km (see Brown, pg. 37, Fountains of the Deep). Water squirting up out of the hole will rise to that level. What is the velocity of the water coming out of the crack? Ignoring friction, this can be found by equating the potential energy of the drops at 17 km to the kinetic energy at the surface needed to propel the water that high. Thus:

    gh = .5v^2

    where:

    h is the height of the water, 17 km

    v is the velocity

    g is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.8

    Solving for v, we have v = 577 meters /sec. According to the steam table cited below, there is a 814 times increase of volume in the phase change. The vapor occupies 814 times more volume.

    Now, According to Steam Tables (Combustion Engineering Inc., 1940), the pressure needed to keep water a liquid at 250 F, which is the temperature of Brown's water, is 2.02 atmospheres.

    Consider a 1 square meter tube with 577 cubic m/s emanating from it. Due to the fact that 2.02 atmosphere is the weight of 20 meters of water, water coming up the crack will not change to steam until the final 20 meters. With the velocity of 577 meters per second coming out of the crack, this means that 577 cubic meters each second will occupy 814 times the volume that it used to. As a water surface passes the point at which it turns into vapor, it will, within one second, be pushed 577 x 814 = 469,779 m. This is a velocity of 469 kilometers per second. There would be no flood since none of the vapor would remain on the earth. The earth's escape velocity is about 11 kilometers per second. Any object that exceeds 11 km per second leaves the earth and never returns. How could this theory cause a flood?

    In reality these numbers would be somewhat smaller due to frictional effects, but even if they are off by 99% , the steam escaping is still above escape velocity for the earth. The steam would be sent to Alpha Centauri!!"

    ******

    Now thats some complicated physics and maths I have just quoted, and make no mistake. I know where my beliefs lie however.

    Now I am not saying that this theory is wrong like my life depended on it. I have however been examining it for all of an hour now. And I think it is total rubbish. Nothing personal




  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    400
    ROTFLAMO@you man .......the stream.......sent to......Alpha Centauri...lol
    Anyway I seriously doubt that you spent much time at all reading the theory.....how could you?
    You were too busy trying to refute my rebuttal

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    206


    Your right antihaxor

    Can't say that I did go into Browns theory all that deeply

    If you have a direct link to Browns work, post it for me.




  7. #7
    Old-Fogey:Addicts founder Terr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,007
    From that site:
    We don't like evolution! We're gonna say it only happens in a certain way.
    Recently:
    Whoah! From crabs to bugs!

    <shrug> I can't say much about the hydroplate theory, interesting...

    But I think that coming up with a theory, and THEN tying it to religious texts, is vastly prefereable to finding something relgious and going out and trying to scientifically prove it.
    [HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •