Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Walt's theory seems to be that there exists a granite ocean mantle approximately 5 miles thick beneath the basalt oceans floor, and that it was this plate that moved laterally, hydraulically, when the waters erupted out from beneath this plate, however, where the plate met the continental plate it literally crushed the granite, the tremendous pressures and temps converting this granite into the metamorphic rock when it pressed up crushing this granite plate under, the continental granite plates, interestingly, the two deepest wells ever drilled, russian kola well and the german well, support this is in fact what happened, they are finding fracture metamorphic rock, water, and other fluid solutes, etc...

Coragyps, It's just a theory, however, they are finding clams on top of Mt. Everest, with sediments 3,000 feet thick, however its a granite mountain, was this under the oceans at one time, if so, then why is it granite, if the oceans bottom is suppose to be basalt.I thought the supersonic heated waters rose upward as the fountains of the deep were erupting laterally into each other, containing the heat upward (so the entire earth wasn't over heated), the volumes of ash going into the upper atmosphere, where the steam condensed around an ash particle to turn into rain, snow, the glaciers were a result of this steam condensing back into snow, the sediments the fossils are found within, caused by the cavitation supersonic forces eroding the techtonic plates, when the waters erupting upward, into the upper atmosphere, etc...P.S. Its hard to believe that rocks of any great size could of been launched over 22,000 miles, though gravity does decrease as one goes up, however, Mt. St. Helens that was only a lateral eruption, and it was still able to launched ash that remained into a lesser orbit for years, etc...

They say they are finding clams in the closed position, which infers that they were buried alive, it says they are finding these clams in sedimentary rocks all over the world, including, Mt.Everest.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=5
P.S. I thought Pelecypods included the clams, oysters, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-29-2003]

NosyNed, The link, said that the top 3,000 feet of sedimentary rock of Mt. Everest was packed with sea shells and other ocean dwelling creatures, including clams, which are found in sedimentary rock all over the world, testifying that the oceans once covered the entire earth, leaving these fossils behind, etc...

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...

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.
P.S. Oil, Coal has been proven to be formed in short periods of time, not that all the sediments, on the earth were formed in the biblical flood, however the sediments of the earth average over 1 mile in thickness, for what ever reasons, because oil can be formed in short amounts of time if both pressure and water are present, one can not conclude that the oil fields are necessarily all that old, from a world flood perspective, etc...however, if one discludes the biblical flood, one would need millions of years to account for the sediments, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-29-2003]

Coragyps, Yep, I believe the fossils were buried suddenly, I used to watch creationist documentaries on sky angel satellight, they had a documentary, on how quickly organics can convert to coal, or oil, depending only on pressure and if water is present, etc...TrueCreation,--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?whatever, Sometimes simpler is better, not sure if I'm correctly stating the hydroplate theory, its probably more complex than what I'm theorizing it to be, I thought Walt believed the only subducting that happened was when the techtonic plates crushed under the continental plates when the water's erupted out of the earth providing the push to move laterally, after the waters stopped erupting, the fractured techtonic plates, became big floating slabs, fractured from the continents, and the total square miles of the world ocean techtonic plates pressing down (is acting like an hydraulic press) and this is whats causing the smaller continental mass, to press up, so that the continents can not press down, and this pressing down also pressed up the mid-ocean ridges, causing them to buckle up, trapping the techtonic plates so they can only press down, etc...
P.S. Because if the plates are floating on fractured rock and water, shouldn't be surprising, if they appear to be moving, however, it would be interesting if they see the trenches are moving laterally, etc...

I'm leaning that the magnetic reversals are simply a natural phenomenom, try laying permanent magnets side by side, with the north pole pointing north, you can not, you need to reverse the polarity, meaning as lava flows out onto the oceans floor, whenever, it automatically orientates the iron, to this natural phenomenom (has nothing to do with the earths north and south poles), the earth likely never has reversed its magnetic fields, likely they have not profile dated the solid basalt rock under the sediments, on the oceans floor, either, that exibit your so called magnetic reversals, etc...It sure would be interesting if they have drilled through the sediments into the basalt, profile dating the oceans floor, and not just the sediments on the top of the oceans floor, if not, then one has no concrete proof the plates are actually spreading from the mid-ocean ridges, perhaps thats why its called the techtonic plate theory, and that we have the hydro-plate theory, though there both still only a theory, etc...P.S. The islands probably have been dated, but even the seamounts likely existed during the biblical flood, though its interesting their tops are flatten 1/2 mile below the surface, as if they existed at one time above the wave base, meaning the oceans sank over 1/2 mile, or where did all that water come from, etc...

I thought the magnetic reversals was explained by long periods of time, I was using a simple analogy, you can not lay two permanent magnets side by side with both north poles pointing in the same direction, you need to reverse polarity, the same as is evident on the earth, etc...

JonF, I thought as the basalt lavas flowed out the iron orintated itself before it cooled, however, the mid-ocean ridges themselves show it magnetics are reversed on each side of the ridges, so its obvious the magnetic reversals are not related to time, that the earth changed its magnetic north and south pole, etc...Chiroptera, Just because the mid-ocean ridges in Iceland are cracking filling with lava, etc...doesn't necessarily mean the techtonic plates are not floating, it would be interesting if they have evidence of like value that the trenches are subducting, don't see how solid basalt rock can bend, to make the turn, to subduct into the trenches, however, if the techtonic plates are floating, might explain how the mid-ocean ridges appear to be expanding, etc...

roxrkool, I typed basalt dating and came up with this article about the efforts to date the Phillipine Plate to confirm the seaplate formed by backark spreading, however, I didn't see any basalt profile dating thats consistent, seems they confirming my suspicions, that they are having problems coring to the basement basalt, It say this was to be the first legs to sample and estimate the age of basement in the region and to confirm that the seafloor formed by backarc spreading. It says confirmation has been imprecise because of spot coring, core disturbance, and poor preservation of microfossils, etc...
P.S. If they are having a hardtime coring to the basalt, then they really don't know if a granite layer doesn't exists beneath the basalt, etc...http://www-odp.tamu.edu/...tions/prelim/195_prel/prel11.htmlSITE 1201: ION SEISMIC OBSERVATORYScientific Objectives
The principle objective at Site 1201 was to install a long-term borehole seismic observatory in the middle of the Philippine plate to improve global seismic coverage, to study the structure of the upper mantle under the Philippine Sea, and to study plate interactions in the western Pacific. It was also expected that drilling at Site 1201 would provide samples representative of the Eocene/Paleocene crust of the northern West Philippine Basin. Results from this site would thus augment those obtained during DSDP Legs 31 and 59, which were the first legs to sample and estimate the age of basement in the region and to confirm that the seafloor formed by backarc spreading.Age of Basement
Although the age of the basement in the northern west Philippine Sea has been estimated from magnetic anomalies, paleontologic confirmation has been imprecise because of spot coring, core disturbance, and poor preservation of microfossils. By continuous coring to basement using modern coring techniques, we hoped to obtain an accurate basement age from undisturbed microfossils, magnetostratigraphy, or radiometric dating of ash horizons. This information would be of considerable importance in constraining models of backarc spreading.It seems that the magnetic reversals are more about basalt forming in cracks and filling the void, like in Iceland, like what about where they are finding these magnetic reversals going perpendicular to north and south, forming these magnetic reversals, like howcome the mid-ocean ridges themselves, show opposite magnetic on the east and west side, do you really believe the mid-ocean ridges formed the east side of the ridges at a different time than it formed the west side of the ridges, etc...the magnetic reversals is a normal thing not related to long periods of time, its not related to the earth changing its magnetic polarity, etc...Although textbooks show these so-called reversals as smooth bands paralleling the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, there is nothing smooth about them. Some bands even run perpendicular to the ridge axisthe opposite of what plate tectonics predicts. Also, the perpendicular bands correspond to fracture zones.8 The hydroplate theory will explain these magnetic anomalies.Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodP.S. Type magnetic reversals to find Walt talking about some bands even run perpendicular to the ridge axis, the opposite what plate tectonics predicts, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-31-2003]

It does appear that Walt believes the fluctuations are related to intensity, not sure why he believes this, perhaps the intensity drops till the next main reversal, like a magnetic buffer between the reversals, whatever, because I need to reverse my permanent magnets, seems too me, there is something to magnetic reversals, in that I need to reverse my polarity of my permanent magnets to put them side by side, meaning of course that magnetic reversals have nothing to do with the earth changing polarity, etc...
P.S. Take 4 permanent magnets, and lay them side by side, then use another permanent magnet to check polarity, you will find permanent polarity reversals, the theory of the earth changing polarity is obviously flawed, etc...

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...
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[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-31-2003][This message has been edited by whatever, 12-31-2003]

TrueCreation, I'm not sure about the guyouts, leaning the limestone happened pre-flood, the other ocean sediments translocated during the flood, and the coral grew shortly after the flood, when these islands sank below the wave base, as the inner mantle was sucked downward, whatever, its interesting that these island's are presently over 1/2 mile under the wave base, etc...NosyNed, It was just a satellight topographic map of the Pacific Ocean, I thought all on this site would enjoy seeing, I mean its not going away, but heard you only see it from a satellight topography map, it the topography that brings out the features, etc...but then getting back the subject of the tectonic plates, what about the trenches, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood type trenches in his google search engine.Centered on the Pacific and Indian Oceans is the trench region of the western Pacific. As material beneath the western Pacific was sucked down, it buckled downward in places forming trenches. The Atlantic Ocean (centered at 21.5W longitude and 10S latitude) is almost exactly opposite this trench region (centered at 159E longitude and 10N latitude). [See Figure 80 on page 127.]A simple, classic experiment illustrates some aspects of this event.A cup of water is poured into an empty 1-gallon (5 liter) can. The can is heated from below until steam flows out the opening in the top. The heat is turned off, and the cap is quickly screwed on the top of the can, trapping hot steam in the metal can. As the steam cools, a partial vacuum forms inside the can. The can’s walls buckle in, forming wrinkles in the metalminiature trenches.It seems this is likely how Walt Brown seems to be explaining how the trenches formed, its only a theory, that the trenches were sucked down into the inner earth as the 47,000 miles of mid-ocean ridges buckled up, it reminds me of a local company, they had a big industrial tank of heated water, to clean some industrial lines, the pressure relief valve failed, when the suction plugged, this was a heavy reinforced tank, however, it just wrinkled up, this is how Brown believes the trenches formed, when the 47,000 miles of the basalt mid-ocean ridges rose, the 10 + miles of thickness of the ocean mantle, & the continental plates resisted wrinkling downward, except where the plates, were crushed, just before the continental plates, but not under where the plates had crushed under the continental plates,therefore, it was before the continents where it buckled inward sucking crushed mantle downward into the inner earth forming the trenches, and the ocean plates settled, with the displaced waters, pressing down, by the forces of gravity, like an hydraulic press, restablishing equilibrium in the inner earth, however like the a tank losing suction without a pressure relief, will wrinkle up, or as Walts theory goes, the trenches are not subducting plates, etc...P.S. I'm not a scientist either, so not even sure if I'm correctly understanding all of Walts theories, you might do well to check out his site, Walt seems to infer that the tectonic plates are floating, and basalt still outflows from the mid-ocean ridges, think he also agree's that the plates are floating toward the trenches, but not subducting under the continent, solid rock is just moving to fill the void, likely why the trenches of the world is one of the most volatile areas on the earth, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-01-2004]

NosyNed, I thought coral could grow quite quickly, as long as they are under water,Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... think they are measuring the ridges, but not sure about data on the trenches, is there evidence like the expanding crack in Iceland, that the plates are subducting, its really physically impossible, for solid rock to bend, the rock would be crushed, because its physically impossible for the plates to subduct, then the trenches were literally sucked down(Walts theory), when the mid-ocean ridges, and the mountains, pressed up, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-01-2004]