Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory" is thoroughly refuted by virtually everything we know about the ocean floor, from bathymetry to heat flow, sediments, and beyond.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Right back at you Coragyps Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

quote:

---

roxrkool, It would appear that oceans covered parts of the USA, it is interesting, though, that they are now above sea level, confirming, the bible, that the waters rushed by the mountains to the place prepared for the waters, kjv psalm 104. Its also interesting the waters are pressing downward, and that the mountains are still rising upward, even to this day, etc...

---

--That seawater exerts a downward force is not the reason mountain building takes place now or at any time before. Even if there were no oceans at all plate tectonics would probably still take place, albeit the oceanic lithosphere would be rather thin and much more elevated than it is now due to isostatic balance, but I don't want to go off on a tangent there. Eustasy has fluctuated all throughout the deposition of the geologic column and that it was once higher than today does not confirm the veracity of the bible. Of course it doesn't argue against the veracity of the bible either, but your point was incorrect nevertheless.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-29-2003]

--While the topic of discussion is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, a little over a year ago I wrote a brief rebuttle to one of his mechanisms for the formation of strata, liquefaction. Instead of posting a link to the short essay, I will copy the relevant portions because I will probably revise it sometime in the upcoming months.--One of Brown's evidences for liquefaction as a means for stratification in the geologic column is the well documented 1929 trans-atlantic cable breaks. In 1952, Heezen and Ewing presented evidence that a large-scale turbidity passed across a segment of the North Atlantic seafloor. On November 18, 1929, the New England and Maritime Provinces of Canada were hit by an earthquake which was centered off the edge of the Grand Banks, Nova Scotia. As a result of the earthquake, during and after thirteen transatlantic telegraph cables were broken: ten of which parted in two places and three which broke in three places. The broken cables lay along the steep continental slope that descends southward off the edge of the Grand Banks and on the distant gently sloped seafloor. No cables which lay on the continental shelf were broken. As Brown briefly explains in his book, each break was timed accurately by the automatic machines which recorded transmissions, whose locations were determined by measurements of electrical resistance of the cables.--An interesting correlation was discovered after this data was studied. Eight cables high on the continental slope were broken instantly during the earthquake and the remaining five snapped successively in order of their position downslope [Fig 1].Figure 1

--------------------
Profile of the sea floor south of the Grand Banks showing the position of transatlantic cables broken by the landslide and turbidity current began by the Earthquake. Times are labeled in accordance with the format, Hrs:Min. [After Heezen & Ewing, 1952]--Heezen and Ewing [1952] suggested that poorly consolidated sediments on the continental slope slumped resulting in a landslide which broke the first eight cables. The motion loosened the weak cement binding the minerals together and threw the unconsolidated material on the bottom violently into suspension. This created a turbidity current which began to flow as a heavy turbulent liquid. The current was forced down on the base of the gently sloping ocean floor, breaking the cables as they violently ripped through them.--Because the timing of the breaks were calculated accurately, we could then deduce the speed of the current. Back-of-envelope calculations reveal that the current was traveling at ~58 mph near the base of the continental slope, but as time passed, it had slowed to less than ~14 mph when it snapped the last cable, 295 miles downslope.--This data [Fig 2] was then used for comparisons with artificially induced turbidity currents in experimental tanks [Kuenen, 1950]. From the calculations Kuenen deduced that with the velocity it must have proceeded far beyond the last cable break, even on the essentially flat seafloor. Kuenen suggested, as a tentative estimate that it may have transported fine sands 500 miles from the toe of the landslide, and spread at great depths over about ~100,000^2 miles. The hypothesis has been partially confirmed by the dredging of "clean sharp sand" from many points within the area.Figure 2

--------------------
A powerful earthquake off Newfoundland in 1929 caused a submarine landslide on the edge of the continental shelf. Submarine cables in the slump area broke immediately but cables downslope broke up to several hours later. Apparently a dense current of suspended sediment traveled several hundred kilometers across the sea floor. (Recreated [Dutch, 2000 online document])--In Brown's book, which is available in its entirety online he argues the following in an attempt to support liquefaction as a vaible mechanism for stratification:

quote:

---

...a large wave, a tsunami, would have rapidly radiated out from the earthquake’s epicenter. Below the expanding wave, liquefaction would have partially liquefied sediments on the seafloor allowing them to flow downhill slowly.10 This sediment flow loaded and eventually snapped only those cable segments that were perpendicular to the downhill flow.

---

--In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Examples of Liquefaction--As explained earlier, the cable breaks were timed accurately and so the velocity of the turbidity (or supposed tsunami) can be calculated. The data (figure 1) show a relative exponential decay in velocity as depth and ocean floor declination begins to diminish. However, the dynamics of tsunamis predicts the inverse.--At oceanic depths of over 20,000 ft, unnoticed tsunami waves can travel at nearly 600 mph, 10 times that observed at Grand Banks. Scientists can predict when a tsunami will arrive at a given destination because wave velocity varies with the square root of water depth. Tsunamis will increase in speed with increased depth and will decrease as depth decreases. It is clear then that the 1929 cable breaks could not have been caused by a tsunami.--Liquefaction is not a viable process by which the entire geologic column could be stratified. Of course, copious other more directly implicit details from other geologic data thoroghly refute this phenomena as a responsible cause for the Phanerizoic rock.Cheers,
-Chris GroseGilluly et. al, Principals of Geology - Second Edition, 1959.Kuenen, P. H. Marine Geology. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1950.Heezen, B. C. and M. Ewing, Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake, American Journal of Science, vol. 250, p. 849-873, 1952.Brown, Walt., In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 7th Edition - Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodDutch, Steven., Natural and Applied Sciences: Wave Erosion and Marine Geology, 2000. - File Not Found - UW-Green Bay

quote:

---

TrueCreation, I suppose it would depend if the techtonic plates are moving, or floating, It just doesn't seem feasible for the rigid basalt layer to subduct under the continental plate, it makes more sense that it crushed under the continental plate, meaning presently the techtonic ocean floor plate is likely 5 to 10 miles thick, a massive floating plate floating on a layer of fractured rock and water, which is in turn pressing down into the soft malleable inner earth, with the water also pressing down because of the effects of the gravity of the moon, causing the inner earth in turn to press up hydraulically against the mountains, the floating ocean techtonic plates seem to me to be hydraulically responsible for the uplifting.

---

--The oceanic lithosphere is much less dense and much thinner than continental lithosphere, and so when the two converge and are subject to compressional strain it isn't surprising that oceanic lithosphere subducts underneath continental lithosphere. Seismic imaging readily confirms this process. Also the oceanic lithosphere is only about that thick at spreading ridges (where seafloor is originally created) and gradually thickens with distance from spreading ridges. This alone argues in favour of a plate tectonic origin of all the modern seafloor (contrary to the hypothesis of hydroplates), in conjunction with magnetic anomaly patterns, bathymetry, and heat flow. Not only that but no discontinuity such as would be predicted by a former layer of water underneath continents or seafloor is found in seismic reflection data. Furthermore, mountain ranges are not merely 'pressed up' but are formed through compression of the continental lithosphere. Their uplift is a direct response to this compression and isostatic adjustment.--Tell me, is Walt Brown's theory appealing to you because it is simpler, because you assumed "plate tectonics implies millions of years", or is it because of something else?Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-29-2003]

Minnemooseus,
--You correctly pointed out my typo with my saying that ocean lithosphere is 'less' dense, when it really is 'more' dense. I am glad that you caught that. I think that the specific gravity of ocean crust is closer to 3.25, but that is off the top of my head.--You are also correct in saying that there is a difference between what is considered crust and what is considered lithosphere. The lithosphere is the rigid outer shell of the earth, generally considered the portion of the outer shell which remains rigid and resists deformation over long intervals of geologic time (~10^9 yr). In detailed geophysical studies, however, such a definition of the lithosphere can sometimes cause some confusion and so more precise definitions can be used, usually depending on the property considered. Therefore the more specific terms such as mechanical, elastic, and thermal lithospheres are used. The complete oceanic crust is typically 6-7 km thick with no systematic variation in the thickness of the Gabbroic and basaltic layers with age (unlike the systematic variation in total lithospheric thickness with seafloor age), however oceanic crust can range in thickness from 2-37 km. Below these two layers (of basalt and gabbro) is not considered oceanic crust and is where depleted mantle rock is located. The boundary differentiating depleted mantle rock and ocean crust is considered the Moho. This layering can also be seen in ophiolite sequences on land (as minnemooseous referenced). Correct me if I am wrong, it is 3:30 am where I am right now and I am about to sleep on my keyboard..and I have a cold..ugh--Your expounding on my statement that 'seismic imaging readily confirms this process [of subduction]' is somewhat correct. The images I refered to are derived from seismic tomography data and clearly show the dipping angle of the subducting lithosphere into the mantle beneath continents. This data is not necessarily compiled from earthquakes originating solely from subduction zones, albeit data on the distribution of earthquakes near subducting slabs can be plotted against the tomographic images and it illustrates the same basic layout exceptionally well. The majority of major earthquakes occuring at subduction zones clearly outlines subducting slabs (above slabs at the mantle wedge-lithospheric slab interface, and below slabs at the underlying mantle-slab interface) in many data sets.--Consider your authority terminated! lol --You are right that the lateral dimension in my graph is greatly exadurated relative to the vertical. This does kinda render my descriptive term 'steep' a bit inaccurate. Nevertheless, the continental slope is steeper than the more distant seafloor.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

Simpler can only begin to be considered better when it explains the data equally well. All currenty YECist geophysical hypotheses fail in this aspect, and while it is my personal conviction that it is possible that there may be weight and the potential for advancement for Baumgardner's ideas, Walt Brown's hydroplate is so far off the mark it is not unreasonable to conclusively consider it essentially false with no hope of reconciliation with the geological data.--Anyone who has read a portion or even lightly skimmed through his analysis of the geological data and considered his conclusions could rightly say that it completely lacks the relevant detail. It is exceptionally simplistic and therefore highly appealing to Kent Hovind et al.--Brown has no viable model for the earths past geodynamics that is consistent with virtually any of the data found on or in the oceanic lithosphere or continents. The water which is supposedly originating far beneath the earth would have been so hot that if any significant portion of it is used to flood the earth, you do indeed have ark soup. But if it excapes the earths atmosphere you have no flood either. If such a lateral pushing force were applied to oceanic lithosphere at ocean ridges the oceanic plates would buckle and build their own mountian ranges (not just ocean ridges) far before they would be 'crushed underneath the continents.--Brown's "hydraulic uplift" mechanism for the formation of the current mountain ranges just is not feasible and such velocity anomaly implied by a layer of water would be readily noticable in seismic reflection or tomographic data which is not observed anywhere.Cheers
-Chris Grose
OYSI

Whatever,--The data when considered quantitatively clearly show that reversals in polarity have occured throughout the deposition of terrestrial sediments, oceanic sediments, and the systematic formation of seafloor at spreading ridges. Magnetic anomaly data from spreading ridges clearly show lineations parallel to the ridge. Even where extrusive volcanics were extruded on seafloor their remanent magnetization can be correlated well with the geomagnetic polarity time-scale(GPTS). Magnetic anomalies in the seafloor coupled with radioisotopic age data also correlate well with terrestrial paleomagnetic data from sediment and lava flows. There simply is no way around polarity reversals, the logical inference of seafloor spreading, plate tectonics, and the lack of any evidence for any 'hydroplate'. Yes they are both theories, but the latter seems to me a silly one.--Also, if you can solve the problems implied by the summit geomorphology of guyots for any catastrophic geological theory such as catastrophic plate tectonics, hydroplates, et al. you are my new best friend.--The real problem with guyots is not their flat tops (albeit it is a subject of discussion in itself) but the data available from seismic reflection and core data. The data show that there is volcanic basement with superposing layered lagoonal limestone facies and pelagic cover. Further there are reef facies encrusted around the summit of many guyots in a typical atoll structure. Some guyots such as the Darwin Guyot exhibit rimmed segments surrounding a lagoon with about 40-60 m of relative relief.--A good source of information on the summit geomorphology of guyots is accessable in AGU's Geophysical Monograph 77 - "The Mesozoic Pacific: Geology, Tectonics, and Volcanism". May as well get a subscription to an AGU journal while your at it for the member discount.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Not sure about the guyouts, sound like your saying is that they are achored to the basement basalt, that caused them, and if the plates moved then they should of been scraped off, and that coral that growed infer that they were under water, too, but not 1/2 mile underwater, think there is a theory about a land bridge to Austrailia, that sank as the oceans continued to sink after the flood, perhaps the guyout's sank too, after the coral had started to ring the islands, gravity pressing down hydraulically, on the ocean plates, not scraping them off the oceans floor, think this is one of Walts ideas that gravity smoothed the earth a bit, hydraulically, after the flood, mountains pressing up, etc...

---

--You missing the problem. Guyots are seamounts with a flattened top by erosion. The seamount itself is of volcanic origin and so the actual seamount is the basement rock, above which is layered lagoonal facies (not faces!) of limestone. Above that is a thinner cover of pelagic sediments which are also found all over the ocean floor. This indicates that the lagoonal facies were deposited before gradual deposition of the upper-most pelagic cover. Furthermore, as explained in my last post, there are remanents of atoll reefs, inside which are found the layered lagoonal sediments. Such formations can only be formed at about sea level. With increasing age of island chains these guyots are found submerged with increasing depth due to gradual thickening of the oceanic lithosphere on which it stands which results in subsidence deeper into the underlying mantle. This is not explainable by Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis, and neither is it well explained by any other process of catastrophic geodynamics. Since the progressive sinking of these guyots deeper into the water is driven by isostatic balance of the oceanic lithosphere, you cant have such a process take place so slowly after a hydroplate flood, such would be a catastrophe in and of itself. The 'land bridge to australia' really has nothing to do with it. You are right that as the guyots sank the reefs grew on top of them, but the thing is that this all has to happen in about a year. The only possible explanation is an allochthonous (transport) model for the biofacies of layered limestone and ancient reef atolls, but how this would happen is difficult to imagine, especially in Walt brown's scenario.

quote:

---

P.S. However, perhaps God is responsible, for the coral, the face on the pacific ocean floor, etc...In the 2nd verse kjv genesis 1:2 of the bible God mentions the face of the waters, the face of the deep, many feel this is the anatomical face God left on the earth,imprinted in the geology of the Pacific Ocean Floor, taking up almost 1/2 of the Earth, almost as if it was taken out of a grays anatomy text book, it said we were made in his image, like when an angel look's at us they see were created in the image of God, The coral would of been like anatomical hair for the image, etc... the tears coming out of the eye, the sinus cavity, the throat, chin, etc... because your all into the geology of the earth, thought you all would enjoy it, etc...It's like God left his signature that he's responsible, it suppose to be a copy of a topographic Randy McNally satellight image, of the Pacific Ocean, etc... http://www.spiralupdatenews.com/viewing.html

---

--I wasn't refering to a 'face'. A facies is an overall aspect or set of characteristics of a rock that reflects its particular depositional environment.--I'll let someone else deal with your link while I go be a pyro.Happy New Year,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

quote:

---

roxrkool, I like the idea of plates crushing under the continental plates, only because its impossible for rock to bend to subduct down, so it had to of crushed under the plates, etc...

---

--You have no emperical reason to believe that this is even a viable alternative. The stresses and strains involved in the subduction of oceanic lithosphere causes the whole lithosphere to bend and the upper most portion of the oceanic plate (where temperature is not high) to fracture and undergo intense strains and stresses at shallow depths in the mantle. As the temperature of the subducting lithosphere increases the material is able to deform plastically with ease and this is why the intensity and frequency of earthquakes tends to gradually decrease with depth in the mantle. Walt Brown's scenario just doesn't explain this data. The oceanic lithosphere was not and is not 'crushed under the continents' but is subducted. Copious geophysical data support this scenario and refute Walt Brown's geodynamics. Until you can begin to address and explain this data there really isn't much to say.

quote:

---

P.S. I explained how a tank wrinkles when flow leaves, it wrinkle inward, and this is what happened when the trenches formed, I know you all mean well, but its impossible for solid rock to bend at the angle of the trenches and subduct at this angle into the inner earth, etc...

---

--You need to explain why trenches do not reflect the morphology of an imploded can.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Walts theory is quite complex, but basically hes saying is that the trenches were pulled down, and you believe they were pushed down, etc...

---

--Not necessarily. Oceanic lithosphere is not really 'pushed down' at trenches, but is pulled by the mechanism of slab pull. The topography of ocean trenches is merely the result of the subduction process. There would be no isostatic adjustment that would buoy up deep ocean trenches simply because the subducting lithosphere is too rigid.

quote:

---

and he also says that the tecktonic plates are inching toward the trenches, and that the plates are like floating on a more dense layer that this is called isostatic equilbrium, however, the trenches are a glaring depature from this equilibium, etc...

---

--I think you are confused about isostasy. Isostasy is not an object or thing, it is a principle which states that any vertical column of material has the same mass per unit area between the surface and some depth of compensation. Isostasy can also be applied to vertical adjustments in a sheet of ice floating in water as a person moves about upon the ice. The layer of ice bends under the extraneous weight, displacing a volume of water equal in weight to that of the person. When the added weight is removed the ice rebounds and the displaced water returns. In a geophysical application this is synonymous to the assumption that the lithostatic pressure at some depth is the same over a large horizontal area.--That sinking slab seems to 'defy isostasy' is because it is being deflected by the adjacent continents.Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

quote:

---

Walt's gravity abnormalities, I not sure what Walt feels about it all, perhaps I should buy his book and see if he explains it more clearly...

---

--Your money is better spent elsewhere. Check amazon, they always have great prices on books, I buy nearly all of mine there. Here are some suggestions; If you can get a hold of any of these I suggest you read through them carefully:Lutgens and Tarbuck, Essentials of Geology
Lutgens and Tarbuck, Foundations of Earth Science
McGeary, Plummer, and Carlson, Physical Geology - Earth Revealed
Sager, et al., Modern Earth Science
Hamblin and Christiansen, Earth's Dynamic Systems
Tarbuck and Lutgens, The Earth - An introduction to Physical Geology--I didn't put dates on them because they all have
plenty of Editions. I sugest trying to get any
edition of the book published in the 1990's or more
recently.Here are some good ones I found on amazon for great prices: 123456789Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-06-2004]{Display form of URL's shortened, to restore page width to normal. I did not check to see if the URL's worked. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-06-2004]