Walt Brown's super-tectonics

I'll inject an Adminestrative agreement with Rea. Please pursue the radiometric dating discussion at the topic JonF links to in message 134.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

After having knocked myself out, I'm back to respond.Actually, whatever, I don't know exactly what powers subduction, it is either getting pushed down by the production and subsequent movement of oceanic crust by the mid-ocean ridges (which makes more sense to me at this point) or oceanic crust is being produced because something causes it to sink. I DON'T think it's getting sucked in by a vacuum effect (I need more evidence of such a thing). As far as I know, this is a controversial topic; however, reading Walt Brown's theory about trenches is like reading a Reader's Digest version of War and Peace. The gist of the story is there, but all the details are missing. It's a shell of an explanation with no evidence, therefore worthless.I'm not a geophysicist (so anyone please feel free to correct any mistakes), but from what I do know, Gravity maps specifically display contrasts in density. The force that attracts all matter on Earth is gravity. The higher the body of mass, the higher the force of gravity that is exerted on that body. Gravity measurements on earth are affected by a variety of things: elevation, topography, tides, density, and others.Trenches having low gravity anomalies (less than the average pull of gravity) is to be expected because not only are they huge depressions in the Earth's surface (topographic + elevation effect), but what fills them up are mainly sediments and ~10 km of water (density effect). Obviously they are going to have low gravity.Reading Walt Brown's description of the negative anomaly, I get the feeling he thinks the term 'large negative anomaly' implies that it is so far out there that it is unexplainable. Not quite. There is a mass deficiency, but I don't see how you can also conclude something must be holding the trenches down. Anyone else?? Interesting that this reference was not given a year. Seeing as I've seen this type of behavior before by Creationists, I suspected it was lifted from an old paper. I was correct.GeoRef:TI: The trenches of the Pacific
AU: Fisher, Robert L; Revelle, R
SO: Scientific American, vol.193, no.5, pp.36-41, 1955Seeing as this is your and Walt's assertion, whatever, maybe you can show us "where the missing mass under trenches went and what created the 'partial vacuum.'"

roxrkool, Seeing as this is your and Walt's assertion, whatever, maybe you can show us "where the missing mass under trenches went and what created the 'partial vacuum.'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, with the mid-ocean ridges rising(basalt outflowing), from the inner earth, it caused the inner earth itself to create a suction pressure, causing the waters under the tecktonic plates to be literally sucked like a straw, as the tecktonic plates continues to compress, the inner earth buckled where the pulverized tecktonic plates crushed into the continental plates, allowed it buckled under here, the waters were sucked into this bubble, with the crushed rock being sucked inward, above, with water filling a bubble under the trenches, explaining the gravity abnormalities, etc...
P.S. I'm only theorizing, but if the plates subducted you wouldn't have this gravity abnormality, etc...

Why not?[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-06-2004]

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]

Definitely!!

It seems to me evilution has many problems, which are legion. The Hydroplate theory seems to have much less. Someone mentioned that the lower water would have been so hot, it would have scalded Noah. It seems it may have fast frozen mammoths, as well. Could it be that some type of balance was present, not making it as bad as a few seem to think? Unless you throw out the bible with the flood water, there was water coming up, as well as down. Would there be a better explanation for this-or is it just the whole idea of a flood that some people really fight??

No, simple that is not what has happened. Scientists orginially thought a flood had occured but as more data was gathered they realized that it could not have. The 'better explanation' is no accepted geology, physics and biology. They had to give up the idea of the flood because it was wrong.All the couldn't this or maybe that are wild speculations that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have.

---

Common sense isn't

The major problem with the hydroplate "theory" is that it is contradicted by the observed evidence. The major contradiction is the amount of heat released by the erupting water, pirouetting continents, and lunging mountains would kill all life on Earth except perhaps for a few heat-resistant bacteria. But we're here ... and that's jsut the beginning of the problems.Oh, and there were no fast-frozen mammoths, either. From Mammoths: Were They QuickFrozen?:

quote:

---

William R. Farrand, writing in 1961, pointed out that only 39 mammoths had been found with some of their flesh preserved. Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. Such things as grasses, sedges, other boreal meadow and tundra plants, a few twigs, cones, and pollen traces from highboreal and tundra trees are typical of what was found in their stomachs. Evidence indicates that some of these mammoths had died in cave-ins or had drowned. The Mamontova mammoth was probably caught in a bog while grazing the floodplain of the ancient Mamontova River. Another apparently died on a floodplain, possibly falling through river ice, and rotted mostly away before natural burial. The upright nature of many mammoth finds suggest "that they perished when a rapid thaw melted the permafrost and turned the tundra into a huge bog." (Chorlton, 1984, p.70).

​

... There is no direct evidence that any mammoth simply froze to death (Farrand, 1961).

​

All of this evidence points to a routine scenario of life and death.

---

"they had to give up the idea of the flood... wild speculations that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have"
They are getting back to it, in case you haven't noticed to some extent. And yes, evilution's pitiful religious, and baseless worn out grasping at straws has a lot of people waking up to the fact they were duped! (By 'those wild speculations that are that are demonstrably wrong or don't explain all the facts that we have.')
Besides omnipotent sounding empty rhetoric, perhaps some honest answers would be in order? For example, is it or is it not true that a fossil can be and is used to date a strata, and a strata can be and is used to date a fossil? yes or no? Also about the water someone said was too hot, could there have been a balance or not? Please, refrain from using the typical evilutionist high and mighty 'how dare thou question' condesending bluster, followed of course by substanceless contempt for all ideas that leave room for the fact that things did not create their little selves. There is room in the real world for those minds that try to include a creator in their pitifully limited attempts to understand orgins.

quote:

---

For example, is it or is it not true that a fossil can be and is used to date a strata, and a strata can be and is used to date a fossil?

---

I'm not sure what this means. Radiometric dating gives an accurate date for the stratum. It is expected that the fossils contained in it have the same age. If a certain fossil species is always found, in every instance, in strata that are between x million years old and y million years old, then presumably if that species is found in a different stratum, that stratum is the age of the fossil. If there is no independent method of checking the age, we will assume that age is correct. But geologists always, when possible, check the age using radiometric techniques. Occasionally, when radiometrically dated, the age is different that expected from the fossil. Then geologists must revise the possible ages of that species.

Could you supply the papers where geologists are getting back to this? Oh dear, someone lied to you. Are you really interested in the truth behind this?In fact a fossil can be used to date strata and strata used to date a fossil. But you have a big thing left out of that oversimplified version of the truth. Care to guess what? Well, so far you seem to be long on bluster and zero on backup. When you start to discuss the evidence behind you claims and the logic supporting them our contempt for your claims might be reduced a little.

---

Common sense isn't

I haven't noticed. What evidence do you have for this assertion? Ah, yes. Evolution is going downhill fast. According to creationists, it's been going downhill since Darwin ... but somehow the collapse never happens ... because there is no decline in support for evolution. As Glenn Morton writes (and supports) at The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism:

quote:

---

The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.

---

No, not in the manner that you state it. No, there could not, unless you want to deny (and present evidence for your denial) everything we know about thermodynamics and the properties of water. Water erupting from the Earth would have been hot, and the release of pressure would have created more heat, and everything living would have been parboiled and the flesh flayed from their bones by the superheating of the atmosphere.This is not rocket science. We've measured the temperature of the Earth well below the surface, and have lots of evidence that it just gets hotter as you go farthter down. Any water that came from there would be incredibly hot. And, with all the work that's been done on steam engines and steam power, we know very well how hot water and steam act and, unfortunately, what live steam does to living things.[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-02-2004]

OK thanks for answers. 39 mammoths preserved seems a lot if it were millions of years ago!?
"routine"?! Wow. millions of creatures up there wiped out hardly sounds routine! An 8 ft crocodile (champosaurus) found up near the pole in 1998 (with a toad in it's belly) wasn't on a routine sun bath! And as far as these "cave-ins, DROWNings, FLOODplains, and 'rivers' there are a lot of ways to explain things, Funny how they almost all include water! Maybe more than you think!