Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplate Theory Vs Plate Tectonic Theory

hydroplate theory

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#21 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:44 PM

The article is a big pile of baloney, to be filed under “science fiction”.


And your post isn't because???

Well I guess the fact that you did some "calculations" a few years back then that really settles it, doesn't it? For surely, your calculations are flawless.

It really amazes me that despite the fact that scientists today cannot even agree on environmental issues that we can observe today, we have armchair experts telling us what they think was possible or impossible during a time that no one has the ability to observe.

But perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. What exactly, according to your calculations, was the height of the highest mountain at the time of the flood?

#22 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 26 November 2012 - 06:45 AM

How much of the earth's crust are you talking about?

Any part that's got large quantities of water under it according to hydroplate theory.

How big a cavern?

Big enough to contain half the Earth's ocean, which is what the paper the OP linked to talks about.

Why would God need to support it "divinely"? I don't see why you think divine intervention is necessary to support anything unless you are making assumptions.

You've talked repeatedly of how whether rock collapses or not depends on its "support". That support (the rock's strength and its buoyancy relative to whatever's under it) is what I've been saying wouldn't be sufficient to keep it from collapsing if half the ocean was under rock. If there are additional factors involved in supporting the crust I'm waiting for you to tell me them.

Subteranean water doesn't necessesarily have to be in one gigantic chamber, does it? As far I can see from the Genesis account there were multiple places where subteranean water was involved in the flood.

I never said it needed to be one gigantic chamber. To quote myself : “a system of underground cavities large enough to contain half of the Earth's oceans (...)” . That would be something like a tenth of the Earth's crust by volume, which I admit is less than I'd been thinking; if it were evenly distributed everywhere in small pockets I don't know whether it would be an issue or not. But the paper on Hydroplate theory was about how the water coming out of the deeps caused the mid-Atlantic ridge and drove the Americas and Europe/Africa apart, so that means large pockets of water in a few specific places.

Again, I don't understand what the crusts of other planets have to do with the earth, just as I don't know where you get the idea that God created the earth with a crust that was "incredibly strong". How strong, or how weak the earth's crust was has absolutely nothing to do with anything unless, once again, you are trying to assert a purely naturalistic explanation for the flood.

I was responding to this bit of what you'd said : “And drawing concusions about such things as the the "tensile strength of rock" can hardly be done without actually knowing what the "tensile strenght of rock" was at that time. The earth we see today is covered by a thick layer of sedimentary rock. A pre-flood would not have that kind of unstable crust.”

#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:26 AM

Any part that's got large quantities of water under it according to hydroplate theory. Big enough to contain half the Earth's ocean, which is what the paper the OP linked to talks about. You've talked repeatedly of how whether rock collapses or not depends on its "support". That support (the rock's strength and its buoyancy relative to whatever's under it) is what I've been saying wouldn't be sufficient to keep it from collapsing if half the ocean was under rock. If there are additional factors involved in supporting the crust I'm waiting for you to tell me them. I never said it needed to be one gigantic chamber. To quote myself : “a system of underground cavities large enough to contain half of the Earth's oceans (...)” . That would be something like a tenth of the Earth's crust by volume, which I admit is less than I'd been thinking; if it were evenly distributed everywhere in small pockets I don't know whether it would be an issue or not. But the paper on Hydroplate theory was about how the water coming out of the deeps caused the mid-Atlantic ridge and drove the Americas and Europe/Africa apart, so that means large pockets of water in a few specific places. I was responding to this bit of what you'd said : “And drawing concusions about such things as the the "tensile strength of rock" can hardly be done without actually knowing what the "tensile strenght of rock" was at that time. The earth we see today is covered by a thick layer of sedimentary rock. A pre-flood would not have that kind of unstable crust.”


Where did I say anything about the hydroplate theory? I only just finished saying that I am not qualified to say that much about it. What I reacted to in this thread was a silly comment about rock "floating" on water.

As far as my understanding of floating goes, I believe in involves displacing water in such a way that the water underneath completely supports whatever is floating on it. A body of subtereanean water that is completely sealed under ten miles of rock does not do that.

Now you can believe what you want to about the theory itself, but I suggest you direct your comments towards those that express support for it. I have not done that. My position, and I think you will probably find evidence of this in what I have written, is that we don't know exactly what conditions prevailed at that time, and so it makes me more than a little skeptical when someone tries to claim that they have made some "calculations" and figured out to reverse-engineer a global catastrophe.

#24 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:02 PM

Where did I say anything about the hydroplate theory? I only just finished saying that I am not qualified to say that much about it. What I reacted to in this thread was a silly comment about rock "floating" on water. As far as my understanding of floating goes, I believe in involves displacing water in such a way that the water underneath completely supports whatever is floating on it. A body of subtereanean water that is completely sealed under ten miles of rock does not do that. Now you can believe what you want to about the theory itself, but I suggest you direct your comments towards those that express support for it. I have not done that. My position, and I think you will probably find evidence of this in what I have written, is that we don't know exactly what conditions prevailed at that time, and so it makes me more than a little skeptical when someone tries to claim that they have made some "calculations" and figured out to reverse-engineer a global catastrophe.


If it's the "floating on water" thing you have a problem with, then you are indeed wrong about that. Just because your picture of "floating" in your mind is that of a boat bobbing on the water or something doesn't mean that concept doesn't apply to other bits of matter that are supported by water. And the rock above a pocket of subterranean water can absolutely be supported by that water, if the rock's tensile strength isn't taking the whole load.

It's also interesting that when someone looks at how the theory would work given what we know of the world you claim it's invalid because "we don't know exactly what conditions prevailed at that time", but the second one looks at what conditions would have been necessary for the theory to work you claim "I never said the conditions were ever like that". You have to pick one : if an argument against the theory based on present conditions is invalid because conditions could have been different in the past, then you are saying conditions were different in the past in a way that makes the theory work. Because if the conditions were the same, then arguments based on present conditions would be perfectly valid. So which is it ?

#25 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

If it's the "floating on water" thing you have a problem with, then you are indeed wrong about that.


Wrong about what???

And the rock above a pocket of subterranean water can absolutely be supported by that water


Great, I don't recall saying anything otherwise.

if the rock's tensile strength isn't taking the whole load.


That doesn't mean it is "floating". Here is the definition according to thefreedictionary.com:

float·ing
adj.
1. Buoyed on or suspended in or as if in a fluid.
2. Not secured in place; unattached.
3. Inclined to move or be moved about: a floating meeting; floating crap games.
4. Economics
a. Available for use; in circulation. Used of capital.
b. Short-term and usually unfunded. Used of a debt.
5. Designed or constructed to operate smoothly and without vibration.
6. Of or relating to an organ of the body that is movable or out of normal position: a floating kidney.

Which of these definitions, or any other definition of the word floating are you comfortable with in disproving my point?

It's also interesting that when someone looks at how the theory would work given what we know of the world you claim it's invalid


What exactly did I claim was invalid? My claim was that we don't know. Are you claiming that we do?

but the second one looks at what conditions would have been necessary for the theory to work you claim "I never said the conditions were ever like that".


Did you actually read what I wrote in my last post or just trying to be obstinate? I don't get you at all.

Let me put it to you once more, and this time I hope you have the sense to understand plain english. I haven't made ANY claims that the theory would work, or that any counter-arguments to the theory would not work, or did I?

You have to pick one : if an argument against the theory based on present conditions is invalid because conditions could have been different in the past, then you are saying conditions were different in the past in a way that makes the theory work. Because if the conditions were the same, then arguments based on present conditions would be perfectly valid. So which is it ?


No, you have to pick one if you are going to address MY posts. Does a cavity of subteranean water indicate that the rock above that water is "floating"? Yes or no?

#26 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:45 PM

Wrong about what??? Great, I don't recall saying anything otherwise. That doesn't mean it is "floating". Here is the definition according to thefreedictionary.com: float·ing adj. 1. Buoyed on or suspended in or as if in a fluid. 2. Not secured in place; unattached. 3. Inclined to move or be moved about: a floating meeting; floating crap games. 4. Economics a. Available for use; in circulation. Used of capital. b. Short-term and usually unfunded. Used of a debt. 5. Designed or constructed to operate smoothly and without vibration. 6. Of or relating to an organ of the body that is movable or out of normal position: a floating kidney. Which of these definitions, or any other definition of the word floating are you comfortable with in disproving my point?

I'd be perfectly willing to concede the use of "floating" in planetary terms to be a technical scientific usage of the word, but actually the first one in your list, "Buoyed on a fluid" sounds fine.

What exactly did I claim was invalid? My claim was that we don't know. Are you claiming that we do? Did you actually read what I wrote in my last post or just trying to be obstinate? I don't get you at all. Let me put it to you once more, and this time I hope you have the sense to understand plain english. I haven't made ANY claims that the theory would work, or that any counter-arguments to the theory would not work, or did I? No, you have to pick one if you are going to address MY posts. Does a cavity of subteranean water indicate that the rock above that water is "floating"? Yes or no?

If the water is exerting an upwards force on the rock (which may depend on the water pressure, cavity size or shape, and/or rock strength), sure.

I'm not forcing you to use "floating" in this context, in fact in my original post I didn't use it that way - I said that floating objects was the correct analogy for what went on at the planetary scale. Just because two situations are analogous doesn't mean we need to use the same words. It just means it isn't absurd when we do.

#27 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 November 2012 - 07:13 PM

I'd be perfectly willing to concede the use of "floating" in planetary terms to be a technical scientific usage of the word, but actually the first one in your list, "Buoyed on a fluid" sounds fine.


The first one on the list does not say "Buoyed on a fluid", it says "Buoyed on or suspended in or as if in a fluid".

Rock layers above a subteranean cavity of water are never described as being in or as if in water.

If the water is exerting an upwards force on the rock (which may depend on the water pressure, cavity size or shape, and/or rock strength), sure.


What exactly is burried under rock that doesn't exert an upwards force on the rock? A pebble? A feather? A raindrop?

Look, stop being dishonest and have the decency to admit the obvious, instead of mincing words. Who are you trying to fool? Me? The members of this forum? Yourself?

But OK, since you are so adamant about this, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the stage for you to prove your point. Here is your claim:

"However the masses involved now are huge, i.e. the gravitational forces are enormous, and the tensile strength of rock hasn't changed. The crust will buckle under its own weight as large masses of rock tend to do when not supported from underneath (see : cave-ins) (and "the Earth's crust" is a larger mass of rock than we can picture), and once the first crack appears the water will gush through, breaking the crust up even more and the rock will sink to the bottom of the underground ocean, as the piston would sink into the oil if there were a hole or crack the oil could gush through."

Surely, the weight or mass of something means absolutely nothing unless whatever it rests on can be displaced. This is true whether or not someting is resting on water or air, but especially so when water is involved since water is practically impossible to compress. Rock resting on something sealed and practically impossible to compress would be like rock resting on rock. In other words, it will not collapse under its weight and will not cause the crust to break.

#28 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:46 PM

Impressive reply. Posted Image

What exactly, according to your calculations, was the height of the highest mountain at the time of the flood?


Being an old Earther with no belief in your flood, I have no idea Nor do I know the length of a unicorn's horn.

What is the YEC consensus of the mountain height?

Moose

#29 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:15 AM

I went through an Earth science degree where nothing seemed to adhere to any over-arching idea. I found Hydroplate theory about eight years ago and the revelations were profound. Most any geologic feature can be quickly and simply explained with a good grasp of Dr. Brown's work.

#30 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:42 AM

]What exactly is burried under rock that doesn't exert an upwards force on the rock? A pebble? A feather? A raindrop?

...
...
Two things : first, it doesn't depend on "what is under the rock", it depends on whether the rock is exerting a downward force on that thing that's under it. If the rock is completely self-supported (i.e. if it wouldn't fall down if there were nothing under it, which can easily be the case, cf natural caves and arches) then it wouldn't necessarily exert such a force.
Second thing : why don't you look up what that "upwards force" is called when fluids are involved. I won't wait, you're being thoroughly unpleasant so I'm done with you on this thread.

#31 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

exerting a downward force on that thing that's under it. If the rock is completely self-supported (i.e. if it wouldn't fall down if there were nothing under it, which can easily be the case, cf natural caves and arches) then it wouldn't necessarily exert such a force.


Sure, but since your original argument seems to be based on the fact that rock IS exerting a downward force on water then what does it matter? To me this just seems to be a desperate red herring thrown in because you don't have anything better to come up with.

And that, btw, is what makes me seem "unpleasant" (although I'm not). Perhaps it's just me, but it kind of annoys me when people try to wriggle out of things simply by being argumentative and ... well you know... throwing out red herrings rather than admitting they are wrong.

#32 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:35 PM

What is the YEC consensus of the mountain height? Moose


Somewhat lower that twenty feet of the height of the floodwater. (Gen 7:20)

And if you want to know what the height of the floodwater was then I can tell you that too:

Somewhat higher than twenty feet above the highest mountain. Posted Image

#33 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

Inflate a balloon inside another balloon. Fill the space of the balloons with water. Now turn the balloons into rock. Why would anyone imagine the outer balloon would now sink through the water?

#34 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:06 PM

Why do you think large structures like airplanes are often tested in wind tunnels using high pressures, or gases heavier than air, or cold air ?

Why is it that when dropped down a well a mouse walks it off, a rat is killed, a man broken and a horse splashes ?

You realize that many things change when the scale changes, right ?

So what are the variables you need to take into account to know whether the planet Earth would behave like your balloons with water between them do ?

#35 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

Why do you think large structures like airplanes are often tested in wind tunnels using high pressures, or gases heavier than air, or cold air ?Why is it that when dropped down a well a mouse walks it off, a rat is killed, a man broken and a horse splashes ?You realize that many things change when the scale changes, right ?So what are the variables you need to take into account to know whether the planet Earth would behave like your balloons with water between them do ?

Do you think the stone balloon would sink through the water?

#36 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:20 AM

Do you think the stone balloon would sink through the water?

If it's the size of a normal balloon probably not, the rigidity of the system would keep it in one piece. If it's the size of a planet the outer "balloon" would crumble under its own weight. Do you think Spiderman actually could have the "proportional strength" of a spider ?

#37 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:19 AM

If it's the size of a normal balloon probably not

"Probably not"? I'm sure you can do better than that.

#38 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:32 AM

"Probably not"? I'm sure you can do better than that.

Not without knowing more about the type of rock, I can't. You know balloons have very thin membranes, right ? And you've noticed rock tends to be brittle ?

Now how about you stop dodging and address the actual point, namely : do you think a planet-sized system as you describe would behave exactly like a balloon-sized one, why or why not ?

#39 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:50 AM

Not without knowing more about the type of rock, I can't. You know balloons have very thin membranes, right ? And you've noticed rock tends to be brittle ?Now how about you stop dodging and address the actual point, namely : do you think a planet-sized system as you describe would behave exactly like a balloon-sized one, why or why not ?

Please refer back to the discussion that I commented into.

People believe that the original crustal rock should have sunk through water given Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory.

This challenge is clearly a superficial one and betrays a lack of understanding of hydroplate theory thus the balloon story was designed to explain the setup. If you are willing to concede that you understand the setup and that it is at least a possible arrangement of matter, we might be able to discuss further.

#40 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:07 AM

Please refer back to the discussion that I commented into. People believe that the original crustal rock should have sunk through water given Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory. This challenge is clearly a superficial one and betrays a lack of understanding of hydroplate theory thus the balloon story was designed to explain the setup. If you are willing to concede that you understand the setup and that it is at least a possible arrangement of matter, we might be able to discuss further.

I don't see any discussion happening here, you're just repeating the same things over and over and completely ignoring my answers. I don't know if you're not reading them or not understanding their relevance or what, but if you don't address them I can't know which it is and I can't find a better way to explain things.
I'm done repeating myself, so now either answer the questions I've asked, or explain to me what you understand my objections to be so I can see whether you understand what I'm saying or not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users