Hydroplate Theory

[stereologist]

SUMMARY: Electrical activity produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust and the piezoelectric effect generated huge voltages. For weeks, this resulted in powerful surges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactive material claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.

This is typical meaningless blather from creationists.

1. Please tell us how large a voltage we can expect from piezoelectric electric effects
2. Please tell us about any experiments in which "electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements"
3. Please explain how hydroplate supports metamictization
4. Please explain this Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Yes, and the comets. Total mass: 1.837 * 10²¹ kg (4.92 * 10^-4 Earth mass?) Four percent Lunar mass (1.837 * 10²¹ kg) for the asteroids ^[*] and a negligible ~10^-10 Earth mass (5.9742 * 10¹⁴ kg) for the "known" comets. ^[*] But, however, it would obviously make sense to increase this significantly to compensate for the objects that have already turned into craters. (Not sure yet what Brown says on this, still looking.)

I think it was Modest that has already shown that there couldn't have been energy produced by the plate collapse to even eject the mass of the largest asteroid much less all the rest and comets too.

Turns out, though, that the Kuiper Belt is not part of the hydroplate theory. My bad Stereologist, sorry.

No problemo

And, Modest, there are other propulsion mechanisms proposed by the hydroplate theory to consider. See my reply to you below.


What harm is there in more [exhaustive] rebuttal?

None what so ever.

Not that I'm trying to defend tedrick79 or anything, but I would like to know which proponents of the hydroplate theory invoked miracles and what exactly was said.

Well the idea that sea life survived is only possible if there was a miracle .....

The mechanism of residual radioactivity in the standard model (used for dating) is not the same as the mechanism for residual radioactivity in the hydroplate theory. See my reply to Modest.

I think it's only 1.2 km. Brown says the subterranean water was on average 3/4 miles deep. ^[*] Also, the water was pressurized to 427 MPa and therefore compressed to about half its normal volume. ^[*] Here's Brown's page on "required energy" for your enjoyment. ^[*] Additionally, not all of the granite was suspended, some areas of granite were relatively thicker, and so rested on the lower basalt layer. ^[*] So the "water" was basically pooled beneath the thinner granite. This means the rupture likely followed the "continental divides" so-to-speak, but this point is more toward the aquatic-life issue, I guess.
I alluded to other propulsion mechanisms earlier. Well Brown lists these as the only [direct] propulsion sources. ^[*]

• tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
• chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
• potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
• nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” (See note)

Another propulsion mechanism specific to asteroids that Brown (mistakenly?) lists elsewhere is the radiometer effect. ^[*]

None of this changes anything, if it was 1.2 K then the enrgy is much less the idea is even worse.

Note: The "chapter" regarding radioactivity is not yet published online. (I haven't seen the latest print edition.) Here is the entirety of information regarding point four above from Brown's site.^[*]

“The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” chapter is not yet part of this book. Because of its highly technical nature, the material will be publicly released only when I can have a very high degree of confidence in the accuracy of all its details. The chapter’s summary (abstract) reads as follows:

SUMMARY: Electrical activity produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust and the piezoelectric effect generated huge voltages. For weeks, this resulted in powerful surges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei temporarily together into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.

The standard explanation for earth’s radioactive material claims that it evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the earth formed from that debris. Few of these steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation and refute the evolution explanation for earth’s radioactivity.

A draft of this chapter can be requested by anyone who

• has a strong background in nuclear physics,
• has read the entire hydroplate theory, and
• will provide a private, written critique of the chapter.

Interested individuals should email their requests to:
feedback@creationscience.com

To my knowledge Electrical activity does not produce radioactivity, can you show where electrical activity produces radioactivity?

I believe you have got Brown on this point, after considering both your arguments. I have to take both of you at your word for the most part, however. And the only research I've been able to turn up with is salinity tolerance at differing embryo stages, ^[*] plus my intuition that the crust fractured along continental ridges, and an inkling of probability distribution.

It really doesn't matter where the Earth fractured the theory fails completely on the survival of sea life, fails completely.....

This isn't really a point. The contention between religionists and evolutionists can be summed up with the term "spontaneous generation." Nobody's arguing against natural selection. (Some nuts maybe.) But seriously, just how diverse could species become in five millennia? Or "adapted" at least considering embryonic adaptability?

Oh yes it is, creationists say all Earth life was created as it is, no evolution , no natural selction....

I did a quick search on coral and came up with this. ^[*]

“The 7000-year-old coral communities of Moreton Bay are telling a curious tale, expanding when sea-levels rise or water quality improves, then declining when current circulation becomes more restricted.”

If the events had happened as proposed there would be no coral reefs at all after 5000 years ago....

Yeah, you call on me to explain how granite can deform under heat, pressure and gravity in a little under a year, but yet rock can vaporize explosively under "other" conditions?

Under what conditions does rock vaporise explosively?

I would like to point out the fact that Noah and his ark it's self was a miracle, how did Noah put 59,811 species of vertebrates, 950,000 species of insects on the ark? Not to mention how did 280,000 species of plants survive 300 days being submerged in salt water?

The closer you look the sillier the whole idea becomes......

[stereologist]

The whole hydroplate issue appears to boil down to the notion that the story of the flood in the bible does not work out. Where did the water come from and where did it go?

I've seen presentation where the claim was that the water was in thick clouds that protected people from UV and that is why the people earlier in the bible lived so long. Then it rains and clears up. That's why rainbows were not seen before - the clouds obscured them. Then someone points out that would raise the air pressure here at the surface to incredible levels seen in the bottom of the oceans today.

Then the notion must be that if it was not above us it must be underneath us. Then comes a number of ideas where the water didn't all come as rain, but there was rain and also a flood that came out of the ground. So along come people and ask how the water receded. So more tweaks and more tweaks and you end up with a system more cumbersome than the crystal spheres of the Greeks.

There's a lot of hand waving and claims that science can't explain things that are well explained. Then the hand waving and drum rolls are followed by the claim that the new idea explains everything when in fact it fails everywhere.

So we end up at the start. The biblical flood story does not match the world around us. Fine. That's been known for 500+ years. DaVinci wrote about this.

[Moontanman]

I agree Stereo, it's very sad how much outrageous bullshit people are willing to believe to try and torque reality into twisted shape it needs to be to make such absolute silliness seem true but they will ignore perfectly reasonable real evidence to the contrary. Just looking seriously at the idea of Noah's ark really containing all the life of the earth is just impossible to start with and the salt water would have killed off nearly all the trees and plants not to mention killed their seeds as well. Any why did he leave the dinosaurs out of the ark? Silliness times silliness is stupidity.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Yes, and the comets. Total mass: 1.837 * 10²¹ kg (4.92 * 10^-4 Earth mass?) Four percent Lunar mass (1.837 * 10²¹ kg) for the asteroids ^[*] and a negligible ~10^-10 Earth mass (5.9742 * 10¹⁴ kg) for the "known" comets.^[*]

Originally Posted by Southtown

I think it's only 1.2 km. Brown says the subterranean water was on average 3/4 miles deep. ^[*]

Monntanman is correct: that now makes for quite a bit less energy available.

Using the method of potential energy from my earlier post—the energy available from dropping a 16 km layer of granite worldwide a distance of 1.2 km is capable of moving 2.88 x 10¹⁷ kg from the earth to the asteroid belt. Since the asteroid belt has at least 10 thousand times as much mass as that—the theory is disproved before taking anything else (e.g. comets, heat, etc.) into account.

Originally Posted by Southtown

And, Modest, there are other propulsion mechanisms proposed by the hydroplate theory to consider. See my reply to you below...

Also, the water was pressurized to 427 MPa and therefore compressed to about half its normal volume. ^[*]

My post did not consider propulsion methods or pressure. I assumed that the method of propulsion was 100% efficient and no energy was lost in any way. Think of a trebuchet with a 1 tonne counterweight that falls 1 meter. You wouldn't be able to use that trebuchet to throw 100 kilograms of water onto the moon. It wouldn't matter if you used the 1 tonne to pressurize the water then release the pressure giving it velocity or if you gave it kinetic energy directly through a lever.

Dropping 1 tonne a distance of 1 meter in earth's gravitational field gives you only so much available energy, and moving 100 kilograms up in Earth's field to the moon requires more energy than that.

The method of propulsion is immaterial. The available energy is insufficient. To give an idea, and to throw some numbers around, the total energy you can harness from displacing a 16 km layer of granite 1.2 km is:



Compare this to the energy needed to lift the mass of the asteroid belt 10 kilometers off the surface of the earth:



So, that is already slightly more energy than we have available. There is not quite enough energy to lift the asteroid belt 10 kilometers off the earth... much less establish it in a solar orbit.

Originally Posted by Southtown

I alluded to other propulsion mechanisms earlier. Well Brown lists these as the only [direct] propulsion sources. ^[*]

• tidal energy from Earth’s spin and the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon
• chemical energy from combustion in the supercritical water (SCW)
• potential energy residing in the dense preflood crust that lay above water
• nuclear energy as explained in the chapter “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity.” (See note)

Another propulsion mechanism specific to asteroids that Brown (mistakenly?) lists elsewhere is the radiometer effect. ^[*]

No, no, no. The tides can't put things into orbit. The pressure at 16 km isn't enough to cause fusion. "Chemical energy" makes no sense.

The fact that he's trying to obfuscate the energy problem shows that he recognizes there is one making me conclude he is smart enough to know this theory is crap and he is purposefully lying about it. He loves God so much that he is willing to deceive people for Him. Nice.

~modest

[Moontanman]

The saddest part of this is that this man is using lies and deceit to mislead otherwise honest humans into believing his lies. I have no doubt he is making money doing this. To me what he is doing is criminal, nothing less. What he is doing is every bit as bad as a Ponzi type scheme. He is lying and taking advantage of people to make money, he is taking their money on the basis of lies. Criminal. Sadly, and I really mean this, far too many fundamentalist Christians seem to think that lies are ok as long as it furthers their agenda of religious conversion, influence and control. I lost a friend today because of this bullshit attitude of anything goes as long as it agrees with the end result. I pointed out that one of those scathing reports about Obama and his Muslim sympathies was false. Not only was it false the actual act described, the release of a postage stamp commemorating a Muslim Holiday, was done under the Bush administration. Not by Obama personally as the e-mail claimed. I simply sent a link to this person showing she had been misinformed and suddenly someone I held in high esteem went ballistic saying that if I loved Obama so much i was as bad as him and she didn't ever want to hear from me again. Hurt my feelings, badly, but I mention it because it's a trend by these people. One of my relatives went ballistic on me over another e-mail making false claims about Obama and the heath care plan. No matter what the lie, as long as it agrees with their fundamental world view it's wrong to question it. Fox News (and I saw those two words together with some reluctance) is one of the prime examples of saying what your people want to hear rather than telling the truth. I think this attitude is going to pose ever bigger problems for our society as time goes forward.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by modest

The fact that he's [Walter Brown] trying to obfuscate the energy problem shows that he recognizes there is one making me conclude he is smart enough to know this theory is crap and he is purposefully lying about it. He loves God so much that he is willing to deceive people for Him. Nice.

I don't believe he is deceiving people for the sake of god. I think he is far too invested in this "theory" (hypothesis actually) to allow it to be so easily undone by the laws of physics. Not only does he have his own reputation to protect, he is also carrying the confidence of all those surrounding him that are so reassured by his work and how it has reinforced their belief in the truth of the holy scriptures. It has become his burden. No matter what evidence is presented to refute his claims, he will continue to obfuscate because he knows his followers are generally ignorant of science allowing him to maintain a hold on their support.....support that comes in many forms. He cannot afford to allow his work to be undone. This is why he avoids open and public debate on the topic.

Who is Walter Brown if he is not the man who used science to demonstrate the validity of Genesis?

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I would like to point out the fact that Noah and his ark it's self was a miracle, how did Noah put 59,811 species of vertebrates, 950,000 species of insects on the ark? Not to mention how did 280,000 species of plants survive 300 days being submerged in salt water?

The closer you look the sillier the whole idea becomes......

As I noted in a post a long, long time ago, I'm partial to two natural "thought experiments" of Hydroplate theory, regarding Noah and the ark:

1. The boiled or steamed Noah's ark theory, where the supercritical steam must have instantly cooked the holy man and his family (as well as all the diverse creatures). The resulting stew would have been similar to the sukiyaki, a tasty Japanese dish.

2. Or the exploding Noah's ark theory, where he jammed in 1.8+ million species and counting, and Lord only knows how Noah and his wife were able to put up with the odors and lack of space. From the incredible internal forces and pressures generated by cramming in so many creatures of all kin and kind and lack of similar pressure outside the ark, we can only surmise HMS Noah's Ark must have split an Adam's rib and sank beneath the waves with all hands on board.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Yeah, you call on me to explain how granite can deform under heat, pressure and gravity in a little under a year, but yet rock can vaporize explosively under "other" conditions?

Of course it can, IF you can explain where the energy comes from.

Realize of course that just the one meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs and most of the other life on the planet left so little direct evidence, that it was contested for a considerable period of time after the concept was proposed. The Chicxulub crater was caused by a 6 mile wide meteorite, and it's effect is limited to the crater area on the Yuckatan penninsula whose direct effect was to simply to provide a single transfer of the material in the immediate crater in well ordered layers of debris in the immediate area, of which the dispersion can be easily modeled and verified. It produced no folding or complex reordering of layers even in the immediate area.

If you use this to extrapolate, the size of the meteorite necessary to produce the energy that would come even close to all of the folding and deformation seen in the geologic record would require a moon size meteorite or thousands of smaller ones, either of which would be guaranteed to scrub all life off of the face of the earth.

It would be fine to be so dismissive on this point if it weren't for the fact that the data points to energy release so many orders of magnitude different that its even silly to contemplate any comparison.

You know, I've always liked that word "gargantuan", I so rarely have the opportunity to use it in a sentence,
Buffy