[silverslith]

Please don't see this as a straw to grasp at southtown, but if you want to understand anything about the chemistry and physics of great heat and pressure. It is a very interesting and relatively new field. We are talking temps over 5000K and high pressures deep in the mantle, but the heat actually forces the electrons much further out from the nucleus and into orbital probability distributions that you'd expect the outer electrons in much heavier elements to be in. The chemistry becomes completely different eg potassium behaves like iron etc.
While the temps are simular to what you require to overcome gravity and tensile strength (note your scenario could only work if God suddenly made it that way just prior to its explosion) the pressure of 60000psi is not enough to stop the electrons being fully ionised from the atoms leaving a thick plasma of independantly moving nuclei and electrons. This would penetrate solid matter like rock very well indeed, hence no possibility it could develop through increasing heat from lunar pumping.
The most accepted theory at present is that the radioactive potassium bonding to the iron in the inner core due to the high temp/ high pressure chemistry is responsible for the heat production of earths core. Another theory is that the core is a fission breeder reactor and the isotopic ratio of helium in deep volcanic sources like Hawaii supports this.
Tidal pumping alone would have seen the earth a cold solid rock billions of years ago, not heated it up at all.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by silverslith

Please don't see this as a straw to grasp at southtown, but if you want to understand anything about the chemistry and physics of great heat and pressure. It is a very interesting and relatively new field. We are talking temps over 5000K and high pressures deep in the mantle, but the heat actually forces the electrons much further out from the nucleus and into orbital probability distributions that you'd expect the outer electrons in much heavier elements to be in. The chemistry becomes completely different eg potassium behaves like iron etc.

I am researching all your input as fast as I can. Thanks for the tips. That's why this thread is here.

Originally Posted by silverslith

While the temps are simular to what you require to overcome gravity and tensile strength (note your scenario could only work if God suddenly made it that way just prior to its explosion) the pressure of 60000psi is not enough to stop the electrons being fully ionised from the atoms leaving a thick plasma of independantly moving nuclei and electrons. This would penetrate solid matter like rock very well indeed, hence no possibility it could develop through increasing heat from lunar pumping.

Very interesting. As I told Maikeru, though, it would seem that the more particles of water saturate the rock immediately above, the harder it would be for more water to do the same.

Originally Posted by silverslith

The most accepted theory at present is that the radioactive potassium bonding to the iron in the inner core due to the high temp/ high pressure chemistry is responsible for the heat production of earths core. Another theory is that the core is a fission breeder reactor and the isotopic ratio of helium in deep volcanic sources like Hawaii supports this.
Tidal pumping alone would have seen the earth a cold solid rock billions of years ago, not heated it up at all.

A different mechanism melted the core beneath the oceanic basalt, upon which the continents are said to rest. I'm going to cover that next.

[Southtown]

I'm deviating from my planned sequence, but there have been new developments. I'm going to cover more of the rupture next instead of discussing the core. I will post more later, but for now I just wanted to time stamp a prediction. Note, this is my prediction not Brown's. If he has predicted the same thing, I'm not aware of it. If I'm right then I will pass the credit his way because his theory led me here, but if I'm wrong it's on me.

Mars is not volcanically active nor has it ever been. I think Olympus Mons is a captured asteroid which spiralled slowly inward like a moon. The asteroid could have hit first at the Valles Marineris at an extreme angle, carving the gigantic feature in minutes. There's an odd-shaped indentation mid-way through the valley, suggesting the asteroid bounced slightly off the surface.

Obviously, the asteroid would break up and the pieces would come back down in different places. And Olympus Mons I think would be by far the biggest fragment. The water that this and the other fragments contained melted/vaporized on impact and shortly afterward flowing out and leaving behind traces of flowing water, an oxidized landscape and a small atmosphere. Olympus Mons would then deflate after losing it's water, leaving the so-called calderas on top.

Food for thought.

Thanks for your time.

[Southtown]

No retort? I'm surprised.

[Southtown]

By the way this implies "earth-like" organisms and only "earth-like" organisms be discovered on mars, "earth-like" as in from earth, ranging from bacteria to dinosaur fossils.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Southtown

I'm deviating from my planned sequence, but there have been new developments. I'm going to cover more of the rupture next instead of discussing the core. I will post more later, but for now I just wanted to time stamp a prediction. Note, this is my prediction not Brown's. If he has predicted the same thing, I'm not aware of it. If I'm right then I will pass the credit his way because his theory led me here, but if I'm wrong it's on me.

Mars is not volcanically active nor has it ever been. I think Olympus Mons is a captured asteroid which spiralled slowly inward like a moon. The asteroid could have hit first at the Valles Marineris at an extreme angle, carving the gigantic feature in minutes. There's an odd-shaped indentation mid-way through the valley, suggesting the asteroid bounced slightly off the surface.

Obviously, the asteroid would break up and the pieces would come back down in different places. And Olympus Mons I think would be by far the biggest fragment. The water that this and the other fragments contained melted/vaporized on impact and shortly afterward flowing out and leaving behind traces of flowing water, an oxidized landscape and a small atmosphere. Olympus Mons would then deflate after losing it's water, leaving the so-called calderas on top.

Food for thought.

Thanks for your time.

I do not mean to be harsh… but reading some of your geological explanations sounds like you learned geophysics by watching road runner cartoons.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

I do not mean to be harsh… but reading some of your geological explanations sounds like you learned geophysics by watching road runner cartoons.

K thanks. Why do you say that?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Southtown

K thanks. Why do you say that?

I remember when I first became interested in geology I was very fascinated and enthusiastic but before I really begin studying seriously I would let my imagination run away with me. Like your doing here.

It is imperative that you look at the geologic strata as a book with layers of information going back billions of years, otherwise you will never really experience the true awe inspiring nature of the earth.

Give the “Book of the Earth” its due time. And do not try to cram it in another book were it does not belong.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

It is imperative that you look at the geologic strata as a book with layers of information going back billions of years, otherwise you will never really experience the true awe inspiring nature of the earth.

K thanks. Why do you say that?

No really. You assume I'm unaware of the popular views. I really just wish to discuss why these ideas are inconceivable, as opposed to sitting down and closing my mouth.

[REASON]

I believe an honest acknowledgement would involve an admission that choosing to believe in Hydroplate Theory is really more about wanting to provide legitamacy to certain Biblical teachings (The Great Flood) by attempting to transform myth into reality than it is about wanting to understand a more feasible scientific explanation for the nature of the Earth's crust and surface conditions.

An acknowledgement such as this would not only be genuine, but would explain the need to perpetuate a theory that contains obvious flaws and fallacy, and is flatly rejected by the foremost experts in the related fields of study.