Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

A premise that is contradicted by the evidence.

JonF, It not a premise the waters down there, the hydroplate theory is literally correct, your premise is liquid rock is the hydraulic lubricating agent, is only an assumption, etc...P.S. Water compressibility under extreme pressures, is it not less compressible than your dense basalt liquid rocks, can you prove that liquid rocks are not being compressed densely in the inner earth, its because of the inability of water to be compressed to any great extent that the plates are able to move, etc...

No, you've got the burden of proof confused. You and Walt are claiming the hydroplate thory; it's your responisibility to prove that water under the plates is involved in crsrtal transport. Unsupported assertion. How much friction would there be? Liquids are never solids, and vice versa. The mantle is solid, below the mantle is liquid. But he mantle is plastic, meaning that it can be deformed permanently and "flow" slowly. By plastic shear deformation, the easiest kind of plastic deformation to induce. It doesn't require any volume change or change in elevation, so it doesn't require a lot of energy input. But it's very slow in hot rock. The existence of water below the surface of the earth is not evidence for the hydroplate "theory".

quote:

---

So Walt's sliding continents (I thought he said the water was 10 miles under) have no mechanism? I thought he said something about that 'theory' of gravity? Are we assuming the 100 km 'plate' from pt? Why would I believe you over Walt? Anyone can say they "should not be questioned cause 'everyone' knows I'm right, what are you ignorant (uneducated)because you don't also?

---

JM: I'm doing nothing more than asking so that I can formulate my answer to you in detail. If I post equations that you don't understand, then I waste my time and you learn nothing. If you have a reasonable math and physics background, then we can discuss why Walt's proposal won't work. Have you taken college level physics with calculus, or not? Many well-educated people have never taken these courses so it's not meant to be a sleight. It's meant to develop further discussion on this issue in a scientific manner. If you don't have the background, I can try to formulate the answer algebraically and if that is still too much, I can work on developing a simpler explanation. One of the issues for Walts model (just for your edification) is the same problem that the Baumgardner model has. Namely, Walt's mechanism can't explain the depths of the ocean (see THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS ). You can get some idea of the math in that post.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

You made a big deal about whether or not the Hawaiian Islands are moving, and we supplied plenty of proof that they are; please reply to http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! and tell us what you think. Correct. However, it is an assumption, contradicted by the evidence, that there is water in the pools required for Walt's "theory". We have very good evidence of what's down there from "imaging" by analyzing the transmission of earthquake waves. Nope. The hydroplate "theory" is a lot more than "there's water down there" and requires a lot more evidence than the existence of water below the surface of the Earth. Absolutely incorrect. You should not make up stuff; you're really bad at it. There is no hydraulic lubricating agent and nobody has held such a premise in the last 75 years or so.The evidence shows clearly that there is no hydraulic lubricating agent; the plates are not moving on any kind of liquid. The plates are moving by slow shear deformation of plastic solid rock and incredibly slow convection currents.From UNB GEOLOGY 1001 Lecture 2 - The Dynamic Earth - Plate Tectonics:

quote:

---

the physical properties of rocks change significantly with increasing temperature. At low temperatures rocks are comparatively strong and behave in a brittle fashion. In other words, when a force is applied to a cold rock, it will resist the force until its strength is exceeded and then it will break. However, when the temperature increases, rocks become plastic solids. In contrast to the behavior of brittle solids, plastic solids flow when force is applied to them. Due to the temperature grdaient in the Earth, the rocks at the surface of the Earth (the upper crust) are cold and behave in a brittle fashion, while rocks deep in the Earth are hot and behave in a plastic fashion.

---

It is not "less compressible than your dense basalt liquid rocks". Water is more compressible than solid (but plastic) or liquid rocks. False deduction from a false premise.

Hey, Joe, any comments on isostatic rebound vis a vis Walt and/or Baumgardner? It seems to me that hydroplate "theory" can't explain isostatic rebound, but I'm not positive.

quote:

---

It seems to me that hydroplate "theory" can't explain isostatic rebound, but I'm not positive

---

JM: I've not looked into it. I suspect that Baumgardner's model might be able to explain it a bit better than Walt's since Baumgardner could claim it results from a progressive post-flood 'stiffening' of the mantle. Anyway, it is a good point and worth some detailed exploration.CheersJoe Meert

Well, yes, that's true, and it's because Walt's ideas were constructed with the the goal of being consistent with young earth preconceptions. But much of what people have been relating to you here is how Walt's ideas conflict with much of the actual evidence we have. Allow me to draw a distinction between Walt's ideas on the one hand, and the possibility of a young earth on the other. Walt's ideas have already been falsified by being shown to be inconsistent with the evidence. You *did*, after all, just say this: The many falsifications of Walt's ideas are the only reasons you need to not "embrace it too closely." If you feel you need more clarification then we'd be glad to engage in more discussion about Walt's ideas, but in the end you will find that Walt's ideas are not the young earth model you seek. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. Let me try again.While the earth *does* contain huge amounts of water, it does not tend to collect in huge reservoirs. It is all mixed in with the magma that lies beneath earth's surface and extends down to the liquid metallic core. Walt proposes that this water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge and burst forth causing runaway plate motion. So you ask an excellent question: "Why would it collect there (now)?" The answer is that there is no reason for it to collect there now. What you could have gone on to ask is: "Why would it collect there (then)?" The answer is the same - there is no reason, no physical mechanism, by which the water would become unmixed and gather in a long strip beneath the surface. There are some real world considerations that make this a very questionable hypthesis. I'll explain this with an example. A paper towel is about the right thickness and rigidity to serve as a model for a tectonic plate. Take a paper towel and place it on the counter. The paper towel can slide fairly easily on the counter, but there is still friction, and this friction corresponds to the friction between the plate and the underlying magma.Using some kitchen utensils, perhaps a couple of pancake flippers, raise one side of the flat paper towel about 1/8 of an inch. This corresponds to the water pushing the plate boundaries to a height of about a hundred miles. Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1/2 of an inch. This corresponds to a height of 400 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?Now raise the edge of the paper towel to a height of 1 whole inch. This corresponds to a height of 800 miles in Walt's model? Does the paper towel move? It doesn't, does it?See the problem? The water in Walt's model has to lift the plate edges to an enormous and ridiculous height before the plates would begin to move.There's another problem. Walt proposes that the water reduces the friction. But his model proposes that the water gathered only beneath ridges. The water would not spread to fill the entire area of millions of square miles beneath a plate, and this region 10 miles or so down is under great pressure and would tend to push water out anyway. So Walt still has an enormous friction problem.Finally, if this had really happened in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean only 6,000 years ago, there would be massive evidence. No evidence of such an event has ever been found.Perhaps Walt attempts to address these issues at his website. If you find answers please let us know. Unfortunately, scientists are not at liberty to ignore evidence. The current geological models are accepted because they explain the available evidence, and that includes the radiometric evidence. One reason Walt's ideas are not accepted within the scientific community, and in fact why people like Walt don't even bother to submit their ideas to scientific scruitiny, is because there is so much data they can't explain. You can arrive at all kinds of strange beliefs by ignoring evidence, which is why the practice is frowned upon within science. That's nice. You're certainly permitted to say whatever you like, but the evidence says the reversals occur on average every half million years. The reason we know that is because of the radiometric data, which you haven't yet incorporated into your model, but you can instead arrive at more approximate estimates if you use ocean floor sedimentation depths, since mid-ocean sedimentation rates are, on average, fairly consistent. The depth of sediments on a stretch of ocean floor increase gradually over time, so the deeper the sediment, the older the ocean floor. This approach still yields a interval for reversals of about a half million years. It isn't a case of like or dislike, but of following the evidence where it leads. I think you may have misunderstood. When I said science was just doing it's job by pointing out where Walt Brown's ideas are contradicted by the evidence, I did not mean that they were doing that out of any religious motivation. There is nothing that science can say about faith-based beliefs, and science is not trying to do this. But to the extent that Walt's ideas are brought to forums of science like this one, it is fair game to point out how those ideas measure up scientifically. It turns out Walt's ideas are contradicted by most of the evidence. It would be off-topic to get into this in any detail, but if you're interested we can open another thread. Do you really believe that what's taught in science class should be set by state statute instead of simply being about what science currently understands about our universe?--Percy

JonF, It looks like Hawaii is moving, but couldn't find anything that showed where the bench marks are located on Hawaii, but then I asked Ned to find the exact GPS bench mark data, someone gave me tons of sites saying whatever, so likely Hawaii is moving, the picture was great, all I was asking for was where are the bench marks they used, how much have these established bench marks moved(did these marks move or shift), it might be within all your links, but if these bench marks exists, would of thought it would of been posted, don't they use GPS on Hawaii for land surveys, would think this would be common knowledge, maybe the islands are shifting but not in the right direction, etc...P.S. I have no problem with the liquid rock being plastic, that probably how the trenches were formed, buckled down, Ocean ridges buckling up, etc...You have hydrothermal venting going on near the ridges, they were shocked when they drilled the first super deep well and found water, the evidence in the natural is that water is very incompressible, the perfect solution to the tectonic plate movement, plastic rock is a poor solution, though it might work in tandum with Walts theory, you also have gravity, and tidal gravities, water trapped being very incompressible, is pressing the tectonic plates away from the more dense liquid rock, so the tectonic plate is not floating on liquid rock but being pressed apart by nearly incompressible water, which is why they are finding fractured rock and solute waters filling these voids in the super deep wells, the water is preventing these fractured rocks from solidifying into one solid mass, evidence in the natural supporting the Hydroplate theory, etc....[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-07-2004]

Then you didn't look hard. The VLBI site I supplied includes all that information. Or you could actuall got to a library and reqad the technical literature referenced by the various web pages.[qsd]I have no problem with the liquid rock being plastic[/qs]Nor do I. But the point is that the solid but hot rock of the mantle is also plastic.I won't bother with the rest of your gibberish. How do you explain the formation of the Hawaiian Islands?[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

The Hawaiian Islands formed because of plastic liquid rock and water erupting out of the earth, the fracture likely was opened up, when the waters erupted out of the earth, the Pacific Plate might of galloped a bit(hydro-plate theory), opening up the fracture a bit, being pressed by the different mid-ocean ridges, etc...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/baseball.html[This message has been edited by whatever, 02-07-2004]

And Darwin's against it. I believe he says we'll assume it was already there and start from that premise. That's the way the world, in other words was made, water under in a seperate layer. So why do you say Walt says it collects? And why only under ridge? it was everywhere. Could this basic flaw in your understanding of his theory be why you think it's silly? (you're on the ropes here) this is a good point. No age assumptions here. If what you say is true, even with a non evoltionist editor, you guys would have a caake walk in a debate with the dr. However at first glance, several miles of rock sliding sounds firmer than tissue! sounds good, but we feel the community you mention is so riddled with the 'old age' disease that they are 'senile' and, till they choose to get better, would be in no state to judge sound reason or evidence! - which is interpreted to apply to an old age now we're talking!! Deep sediments! Gee- must've taken millions of years to accumulate since God's flood didn't dump them! ha if the state statute says teach evolution I say dump the school system! Hope that answers your question!

So, what's happening today?

Error again. The young earth theory was dead before Dasrwin and before radioactivity was discovered; see http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?. Darwin just collected his data and proposed his theory. He was bothered by the fact that, according to the thinking of his time, the Earth was much much older than 6,000 years but apparently not old enough for his theory. After that we discovered how old the Earth really is. Really? If so, that's called "making up the major foundation of his theory" or pulling it out of your ... maybe I shouldn't say it. Either way, you don't base a scientific theory on making up evidence. He could speculate aboput what might happen if the water collected in a huge reservoir beneath what became a mid-oceanic ridge, but it isn't a theory unitl there's some evidence. How about some evidence that it happened? He spoke of paper towels, not tissue. How about at second glance? What's the comparative stiffness of the two? Since there are no corresponding deposits on or under land therefore no, your suposed flood didn't dump them there. The statutes require teaching science. Made up fairy tales like Walts's aren't science.

quote:

---

The Hawaiian Islands formed because of plastic liquid rock and water erupting out of the earth, ...

---

Water erupted from the earth at Hawaii? Can you document this?